New Delhi:The Supreme Court on Friday quashed a case against a man booked under the SC/ST Act saying the alleged incident did not take place at a place which can be termed to be a place within public view.
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih. The bench said that taking the allegations in the FIR at their face value, it would reveal that what is alleged is that when the complainant was in his office the accused came there; enquired with the complainant; not being satisfied, started abusing him in the name of his caste; and insulted him. Thereafter, three colleagues of the complainant came there, pacified the accused and took him away, it added.
The bench said that it is clear that even as per the FIR, the incident has taken place within the four corners of the chambers of the complainant, and the other colleagues of the complainant arrived at the scene after the occurrence of the incident. “We are, therefore, of the considered view that since the incident has not taken place at a place which can be termed to be a place within public view, the offence would not come under the provisions of either Section 3(1)(r) or Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act”, said Justice Gavai, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench.
The bench stressed that for an offence to occur under the Act, it will be necessary that the accused has abused any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste, name in any place within public view.
The bench said to be a place ‘within public view’, the place should be open where the members of the public can witness or hear the utterance made by the accused to the victim. “If the alleged offence takes place within the four corners of the wall where members of the public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place within public view”, said the bench.
"We find that the allegations made in the FIR, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence either under Section 3(1)(r) or under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act", said the bench.
The apex court made these observations while quashing the criminal proceedings against Karuppudayar, who allegedly abused a revenue inspector at Trichy by name of his caste. According to the prosecution story on September 2, 2021 the appellant approached the complainant, revenue inspector, in order to inquire regarding the status of a petition filed in the name of appellant’s father concerning inclusion of appellant’s father’s name in the patta for the land situated in Natham UDR, Sembarai village.
An FIR was lodged in the matter on September 2, 2021. The apex court allowed an appeal challenging an order passed by the Madras High Court in February , 2024, declining to quash the proceedings in the case.
“On a perusal of the order of the High Court, we find that the High Court has not at all considered this aspect of the matter though it was strenuously argued on behalf of the petitioner before the High Court (Appellant herein) that the allegations made in the FIR do not make out a case that the offence is committed in public view. The High Court did not even deal with the said contention, leave aside considering the same”, said the apex court.
