Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 482 – Petition under – For quashing charges u/ss. 452,
504 and 506 IPC and u/ss. 3(1)(x) (Substituted as 3(1)(r) by Act No. 1 of 2016) and 3(1)(e) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Dismissed by High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Offences under the Act not established – Hence the charges under the Act, quashed – Charges under IPC to be tried by competent Court.
s. 482 – Quashing of charge-sheet in part – Held: There is no prohibition under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in part. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:
s.3(1)(x) (substituted as 3(1)(r) by Act No. 1 of 2016) – Applicability of – Held: Basic ingredients of the offence u/s. 3(1)(r) are that there is intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of SC or ST and that such insult or intimidation should have taken place at any place within public view – All the insults and intimidations will not come within purview of the offence under the Act – In the facts of the present case, the Act is not applicable.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted to improve the social economic conditions of the vulnerable sections of the society as they have been subjected to various offences such as indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have been deprived of life and property as well. The object of the Act is thus to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations and harassment and commit the offence as defined under Section 3 of the Act. The Act is thus intended to punish the acts of the upper caste against the vulnerable section of the society for the reason that they belong to a particular community. [Para 10][600-D-E]
1.2 The charge-sheet filed in the present case was for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section stands substituted by Act No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016. The substituted corresponding provision is Section 3(1)(r). The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as “1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any place within public view”. [Paras 11 and 12][600-E, G]
1.3 The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. [Para 13][600-G-H; 601-A]
1.4 An offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste. [Para 13][601-A-C]
1.5 Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out. [Para 18][603-D]
Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1104; Gerige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 531 : [2008] 12 SCR
623 – relied on.
Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 789 : [2009] 2 SCR 382 –
distinguished.
1.6 Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in “any place within public view”. In the present case, the offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet. [Paras 14 and 15][601-D; 602-C-E]
Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 435 : [2008] 12 SCR 132 –
relied on.
2.1 If there is a false and unsubstantiated FIR, the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked. [Para 19][603-F]
Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. (2018) 6 SCC 454 : [2018] 4 SCR 877; Union of India v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 761 : [2019] 12 SCR 1125 –
referred to.
Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors. (2020)
4 SCC 727 – relied on.
2.2 There is no prohibition under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in part. In a petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C, the High Court is required to examine as to whether its intervention is required for prevention of abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In view of the facts of the case, the charges against the appellant under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are not made out. Consequently, the charge-sheet to that extent is quashed. The FIR in respect of other offences will be tried by the competent Court. [Paras 23, 24 and 25][605-C-D; 606-A-B]
Ishwar Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2018) 13 SCC 612 : [2017] 11 SCR 145 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.