Gunjan @ Girija Kumari and Others vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Another

Held: In order to make out the offence u/s.3(1)(r) and/or s.3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the occurrence of the incident and the act and conduct of hurling of caste-based abuses must take place at “a place within public view” – It must be a place within the public gaze – Even if it happens to be a private place, then in such eventuality a public-eye must have an access to be able to notice what happens there or what is taking place that will only make the “place within public view” – Alleged incident took place in a private place and within four walls of the house of respondent No.2-complainant and the appellants, who all are family members – While the allegation in the FIR was that respondent No.2 had been suffering similar kind of incidents since long and for last one year, it was not stated anything specific in respect of those earlier incidents with regard to the incident for which the complaint was filed, it was not indicated that any independent member of public was present to witness the occurrence – Once that is so, to suggest that the house place was not exposed to public eye or public gaze, a residential house in no way becomes “a place within public view” – The requirement that the place must be one “within public view” is a sine qua non for making out the offence under the SC/ST Act – In the complaint/FIR, nowhere it was stated that the said incident wherein appellant No.1 and other appellants are stated to have abused and threatened complainant, took place where there was a public gaze – The necessary ingredient of occurrence of the incident “in a place within public view” was conspicuously absent – The charge could not have framed and was wrongly framed by the trial court against the appellants for offences u/ss.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act – Furthermore, the charge framed u/s.506 r/w s.34, IPC against all the appellants was also wrongly framed – Impugned judgment of the High Court and the orders of the trial court set aside – FIR and the charge-sheet filed against the appellants for offences u/ss.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act and for offences u/s.506 r/w s.34, IPC, quashed – Penal Code, 1860 – s.506 r/w s.34. [Paras 5.9, 6.4, 6.7, 9, 9.1] Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – ss.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) – “a place within public view”, a sine qua non for making out the offence under the SC/ST Act:

Held: The occurrence of the incident to become an offence under the SC/ST Act must have happened “in a place within public view” – This is a principal requirement amongst the other ingredients – The other aspects namely “intentional insult or intimidation” and “an intent to humiliate”, gathers a kind of intensity when the insult, intimidation, humiliation or abusive utterances, as the case may be, takes place in “a place within public view”, in the presence of members of the public – The requirement that the place must be one “within public view” substantiates the other elements of the offence under the SC/ST Act – Therefore, it is a sine qua non for making out the offence under the SC/ST Act. [Para 9.1] Complaint/FIR – Contents of, giving initial description more reliable:

Held: For any criminal proceedings to initiate, the starting point is filing of a complaint and registration of FIR – The complaint/FIR provides the first account of the happening of events and incidents alleged as commission of offence – A reaction and revelation at the first blush is always natural and therefore becomes creditworthy – The contents of the complaint giving the initial and primary description could be treated as more reliable, for, at the subsequent stage, there would be a scope and room for improvisation – 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 – The basic constituents of the offence alleged in the FIR must stem and stand disclosed from the contents of the FIR – In order that the FIR alleging any action is sustainable in law to be a good and acceptable document to proceed criminally against any accused named therein or any person to be made accused on its basis, it must manifest and reveal basic ingredient of the offence(s) alleged therein – For an offence to be made out u/ss.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, as is the question in the instant case, the requirement that the occurrence has to be “in a place within public view” is not satisfied, is missing and absent. [Paras 7, 9] Penal Code, 1860 – s.506 r/w s.34 – Offences under, not made out:

Held: Offence of criminal intimidation as defined u/s.503, IPC and made punishable u/s.506, IPC requires that whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property and when such threat is with the intent to cause alarm to that person, commits criminal intimidation – The “intent to cause alarm” is an pivotal aspect and consideration to judge whether the offence of criminal intimidation is made out or not – In the present case, even after closely reading the averments in the complaint, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the appellants-accused exerted threat with an intent to cause “alarm” to respondent No.2complainant – The element of “alarm” to the complainant was “absent” – Even otherwise the offence u/s.506, IPC was alleged against the appellants to conjunct the same with the offence alleged under the SC/ST Act which are not made out – As far as the charge u/s.34, IPC is concerned, nothing is suggested either from the facts or attendant circumstances that the appellants had any common intention to do a criminal act and that they acted in furtherance of such common intention – Thus, it would be an abuse of the process of law and would amount to harassment to the appellants to subject them to the criminal proceedings in relation to s.506 r/w s.34, IPC. [Paras 10-10.2]