Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Under SC-ST Act: “Alleged Offence Did Not Take Place in Public View, Essential Ingredients Not Met; Abuse Inside Office Chamber Does Not Satisfy Legal Requirements for FIR”

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, holding that:

1. The alleged abuse took place inside the office chamber of the complainant, which does not constitute a place within public view.
2. The ingredients of the offence were not satisfied, even if the allegations in the FIR were taken at face value.
3. The Madras High Court had failed to examine whether the legal requirements of the offence were met before refusing to quash the proceedings.
4. The Court applied the Bhajan Lal (1992) test and concluded that the case fell within the category of cases where FIRs should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
5. The charge sheet in Special S.C. No. 7 of 2022 and all proceedings pursuant thereto were set aside.

Facts of the Case

1. The appellant visited the Revenue Divisional Office in Lalgudi, Tiruchirappalli on September 2, 2021, to inquire about a patta (land record) petition filed in his father’s name.
2. The complainant, a Revenue Inspector, informed the appellant that the petition had been sent to the Taluk office, and appropriate action would be taken after receiving a response.
3. An argument ensued, during which the appellant allegedly:
   • Asked about the complainant’s caste.
   • Referred to his caste name and used insulting language.
   • Made a derogatory remark implying inefficiency in government services based on caste.
4. The complainant’s colleagues arrived after the incident and pacified the appellant.
5. The complainant filed a police complaint, leading to an FIR being registered as Crime No. 676 of 2021 under:
   • Sections 294(b) and 353 of the IPC.
   • Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act.
6. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court (Special S.C. No. 7 of 2022).
7. The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the Madras High Court, seeking to quash the proceedings.
8. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that no prejudice would be caused to the appellant if he faced trial.
9. Aggrieved by the High Court’s order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP).

Issues Before the Court

1. Did the FIR allegations satisfy the legal ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act?
2. Was the High Court correct in refusing to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC?
3. Does the location of the alleged abuse (inside an office) qualify as “within public view” as required under the SC-ST Act?
4. Does the case fall under the Bhajan Lal (1992) guidelines for quashing an FIR under Section 482 CrPC?

Petitioner’s Arguments (Appellant)

1. No offence under the SC-ST Act was made out:
   • Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) require that the insult or abuse must take place “within public view”.
   • The incident occurred inside the office chamber, where only the complainant was present at the time of the alleged abuse.
   • The complainant’s colleagues arrived after the incident, meaning no independent members of the public were present.
   • The essential ingredient of “public view” was missing, making the charge unsustainable.
2. Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents:
   • Swaran Singh v. State (2008) and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) clearly established that for an offence under the SC-ST Act, the insult must be in a place within public view.
   • A private office where only the complainant was present does not constitute public view.
3. High Court Failed to Examine the Ingredients of the Offence:
   • The High Court dismissed the petition without analyzing whether the offence was actually made out.
   • Under Section 482 CrPC, proceedings should be quashed if the FIR fails to disclose a prima facie offence.
4. Application of Bhajan Lal (1992) Test:
   • The Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) laid down seven categories of cases where FIRs can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
   • This case falls under the first category, where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute an offence.

Respondent’s Arguments (State)

1. Investigation Confirmed the Allegations:
   • A charge sheet was filed after a detailed investigation.
   • The trial should proceed to examine the evidence properly.
2. High Court Was Correct in Dismissing the Petition:
   • The appellant would have the opportunity to defend himself at trial.
   • The question of “public view” was a factual issue, which should be determined during the trial rather than at the stage of quashing.

Analysis of the Law

1. Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act:
   • Section 3(1)(r) criminalizes intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe member in any place within public view.
   • Section 3(1)(s) criminalizes abusing a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe member by caste name in any place within public view.
2. Interpretation of “Public View”:
   • In Swaran Singh (2008), the Supreme Court held that public view means a place accessible to the public where independent persons can witness the act.
   • In Hitesh Verma (2020), the Court ruled that if the abuse takes place inside a private office where only known individuals are present, it does not amount to an offence under the SC-ST Act.

Precedent Analysis

1. Swaran Singh (2008) and Hitesh Verma (2020):
   • Both cases held that if an insult occurs in a private space without public witnesses, it does not meet the criteria of “public view”.
2. Bhajan Lal (1992) Guidelines:
   • The Supreme Court held that an FIR should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC if the allegations do not constitute an offence.
   • The present case falls within this category.

Court’s Reasoning

1. The incident occurred inside an office chamber, meaning the abuse was not in public view.
2. The complainant’s colleagues arrived after the incident, so there were no independent public witnesses.
3. The High Court erred by failing to consider whether the legal ingredients of the offence were satisfied.
4. The allegations do not constitute an offence under the SC-ST Act, and the case falls within Bhajan Lal (1992) guidelines for quashing FIRs.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings and set aside the Madras High Court’s order.
• The charge sheet in Special S.C. No. 7 of 2022 and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.
• The Court reaffirmed the strict requirements for an offence under the SC-ST Act.

Implications

• Strengthens judicial scrutiny to prevent misuse of the SC-ST Act.
• Clarifies that “public view” means presence of independent public witnesses.
• Provides guidance for future quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Refers Interpretation of Section 50 Cr.P.C. to Larger Bench, Emphasizing the Need for Clarity on Whether Grounds of Arrest Must Be Communicated in Writing or Oral Communication Suffices