CRIMINAL LAW — Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Ss.3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) — Essential ingredient — “In any place within public view” — Meaning and scope — Alleged caste-based abuses inside residential house amidst family dispute — FIR not disclosing presence of public persons or public gaze — Held, basic ingredient of offence under SC/ST Act absent — Mere allegation of casteist abuses within four walls of residential premises without public view insufficient to constitute offence — Charges and FIR liable to be quashed. (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Ss.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) — Penal Code, 1860, Ss.34, 503, 506)

advocatemmmohan

APEX COURT HELD THAT 

CRIMINAL LAW — Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Ss.3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) — Essential ingredient — “In any place within public view” — Meaning and scope — Alleged caste-based abuses inside residential house amidst family dispute — FIR not disclosing presence of public persons or public gaze — Held, basic ingredient of offence under SC/ST Act absent — Mere allegation of casteist abuses within four walls of residential premises without public view insufficient to constitute offence — Charges and FIR liable to be quashed.
(Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Ss.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) — Penal Code, 1860, Ss.34, 503, 506)

Expression “place within public view” — Distinction between “public place” and “place within public view” — Even private place may satisfy requirement if occurrence visible to or witnessed by public — However, occurrence inside residential house without public presence or public gaze does not satisfy statutory requirement.

FIR — Quashing — Where FIR on bare reading fails to disclose essential ingredients of alleged offence — Criminal proceedings liable to be quashed — FIR must itself reveal foundational facts constituting offence.

Criminal intimidation — Mere threats insufficient — “Intent to cause alarm” is sine qua non — Absence of allegations showing alarm or common intention — Charge under S.506 r/w S.34 IPC unsustainable.

Held :
To constitute offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, insult, intimidation or caste-based abuse must occur “in any place within public view”, which is a sine qua non for applicability of said provisions. Paras 5.1 to 5.9 and 9.1.

Though a private place may also fall within expression “place within public view”, such place must be exposed to public gaze or witnessed by members of public. Incident occurring within four walls of residential house without public presence would not satisfy requirement. Paras 5.5 to 5.9.

In present case, FIR and charge-sheet nowhere disclosed that alleged casteist abuses were uttered in presence of public persons or at place exposed to public gaze. Material on record indicated that alleged occurrence took place inside residential house amongst family members. Paras 6.1 to 6.7.

Requirement that occurrence must be “in any place within public view” substantiates and intensifies ingredients of humiliation and insult under SC/ST Act and is therefore principal and indispensable requirement of offence. Para 9.1.

For offence under Section 506 IPC, “intent to cause alarm” is pivotal ingredient. Mere allegations of threats without material showing intention to cause alarm do not constitute criminal intimidation. Further, no material disclosed existence of common intention to attract Section 34 IPC. Paras 10 to 10.2.

Accordingly, charges framed under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act and Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC, as well as FIR and charge-sheet, were quashed. Paras 11 to 13.