Appeal against the order dismissing the quash petition
2. The present appeals challenge the judgment and final order dated 28th February 2024 in Criminal Original Petition (MD) No. 6676 of 2022 and Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (MD) No.4621 of 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras at Madurai.
3. By way of the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the petitions filed by the Appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, “CrPC”) wherein the Appellant has prayed to call for records relating to proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.7 of 2022 pending before the I-Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli and to quash the same.
Facts
4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeals are as under:
4.1 The prosecution story is that on 2nd September 2021 the Appellant approached the Respondent No. 3 (Mr. Ravikumar, 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.
4.2 A quarrel developed between Appellant and Respondent No. 3 whereby the Appellant abused Respondent No.3 by using his caste name in the Revenue Divisional Office, Lalgudi, Tiruchirappalli.
4.3 Consequently, Respondent No. 3 filed a complaint before the Respondent No. 2 (Sub-Inspector of Police, Lalgudi Police Station, Trichy) and case being Crime No. 676 of 2021 was registered against the Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”) read with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter, “SC-ST Act”).
4.4 After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed by the Respondent No.1 (Investigating Officer/Deputy Superintendent of Police) in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, Tiruchirappalli and the case was committed to the Sessions Court.
4.5 As a result of the same, a case being Spl. S.C. No. 7 of 2022 was initiated against the Appellant before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli (hereinafter, “trial court”).
4.6 Aggrieved by the initiation of criminal proceedings so also the trial, the Appellant filed petitions under Section 482 of CrPC before the High Court to call for the records relating to Spl. S.C. No. 7 of 2022 and to quash the same.
4.7 The learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide the impugned judgment and final order, held that no prejudice would be caused to Appellant if he is subjected to trial and dismissed his petitions.
4.8 Aggrieved thereby, the present appeals arise by way of special leave.
Section 3(1)(r) SC-ST: It is necessary the accused abuses member of SC/ST by caste name within public view
8. For appreciating the rival submissions, it will be apposite to refer to the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, which read thus:
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities … “
9. A perusal of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC-ST Act would reveal that for constituting an offence thereunder, it has to be established that the accused intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled 6 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.
10. The term “any place within public view” initially came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Swaran Singh and others v. State [(2008) 8 SCC 435] through Standing Counsel and another. This Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand [(2020) 10 SCC 710] and another referred to Swaran Singh (supra) and reiterated the legal position as under:
“para.14 …”
Utterance of accused scolding victim by caste name within four corners of wall where member of public are not present is not within public view
11. It could thus be seen 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.
As per FIR accused insulted the complainant in his office hence does not come within public view
13. 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.
14. It is thus clear that even as per the FIR, the incident has taken place within the four corners of the chambers of the complainant. The other colleagues of the complainant arrived at the scene after the occurrence of the incident.
15. 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.
16. We may gainfully refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others – 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The law as laid down therein by this Court has been consistently followed.
“para. 102 & 103’ …”
18. We find, as already observed herein, 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. We are of the considered view that the case would fall under the first category, listed by this Court in Paragraph 102 in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra).
19. 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.
20. In that view of the matter, we find that the present appeals deserve to be allowed.
Judgments Cited or Referred in the Document
Swaran Singh v. State – (2008) 8 SCC 435
Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand – (2020) 10 SCC 710
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal – 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Party
Karuppudayar (Appellant) vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy & Others (Respondents) – Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2025 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8778-8779 of 2024 – 2025 INSC 132 – January 31, 2025
