New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that abusing in the name of caste within “four corners of the chambers” of a public official would not make an offence under the SC/ST Act.
The apex court was dealing with a criminal appeal challenging a decision of the Madras High Court, which had dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings, adding that no prejudice would be caused to the appellant if he is subjected to a trial.
As per the prosecution, in September 2021 the appellant approached the respondent – a Revenue Inspector – regarding the status of a petition filed in the name of the appellant’s father concerning the inclusion of his name in the patta for the land and a quarrel developed between them.
Later, the Revenue Inspector filed a complaint before the Lalgudi police against the appellant for using his caste name in the Tiruchirappalli Revenue Divisional Office.
An FIR was lodged against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
Before the apex court, the appellant’s counsel contended that even taking the allegations in the FIR at its face value, the ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are not made out.
Referring to Section 3(1)(r) of the SC-ST Act, the apex court, in its judgment, said that the provision would reveal that for constituting an offence, it has to be established that the accused intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.
Similarly, for constituting an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, it will be necessary that the accused abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view, it added.
Analysing several previous judgements of the apex court interpreting “within public view”, the Justice B.R. Gavai-headed Bench said that “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,” added the Bench, also comprising Justice A.G. Masih.
It noted that 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 Revenue Inspector 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,” ruled the Justice Gavai-led Bench. “
“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,” it added.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court and quashed the trial proceedings.
(IANS)
