The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, holding that alleged caste-based abuses exchanged inside a private residence did not satisfy the statutory requirement of occurring “in any place within public view.”
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria allowed an appeal against a Delhi High Court order refusing to interfere with charges framed under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act and Section 506 IPC.
The dispute arose out of a family property disagreement between brothers residing in Delhi. According to the complaint, appellant No.1 allegedly hurled casteist abuses such as “chura”, “chamar”, “harijan” and “dirty drain” at the complainant and his wife during an altercation at their residence. The FIR further alleged that the accused threatened the complainant and attempted to break open the lock of his house.
The Court, however, found that the FIR and charge-sheet did not disclose that the alleged incident took place “within public view,” which is an essential ingredient for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The Court referred to earlier precedents in Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435, and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, where it was held that a private place can qualify only if the alleged act is visible or audible to members of the public.
Examining the facts, the Court noted that the incident allegedly occurred inside a residential house shared by family members and that no independent public witnesses were shown to be present. The Bench observed that the FIR was silent on whether the incident occurred in the presence of outsiders or in a place accessible to public gaze.
The Court further held that the allegations did not make out the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC as the element of “intent to cause alarm” was absent. It also found no material to attract Section 34 IPC relating to common intention.
Thus, it is trite principle that the FIR becomes liable in law to be quashed when it, in its bare reading, does not disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence alleged therein.
Holding that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process, the Bench set aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment as well as the trial court orders framing charges, and quashed the FIR and charge-sheet against the appellants.
Appearances
For Petitioners- Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, AOR Ms. Urvashi Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Jatin Khatri, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Saroja, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Adv.
For Respondents- Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Kamal Rattan Digpaul, Adv. Ms. Harshita Choubey, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. Udit Dediya, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Banju, AOR
