In SLP (Crl) 1249 of 2023 - SC- Evert insult or intimidation for humiliation would not amount to offence under Sec 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, Allahabad High Court misdirected itself in failing to appreciate challenge to criminal proceedings: Supreme Court
Justices S. Ravindra Bhat & Dipankar Datta[19-05-2023]

Read Order: Ramesh Chandra Vaishya  v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh

Simran Singh

New Delhi, May 20, 2023: In a criminal appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the case pertaining to offences under sections 323 and 504, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and 3(1)(x), the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’), stating that it would be an abuse of the process of law to allow continuation of the present criminal case.

In the matter at hand, the appellant challenged the order passed by the Allahabad High Court which had dismissed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) instituted by the appellant seeking quashing of the charge-sheet as well as the pending criminal proceedings.

The prosecution’s case was that on 14-01-2016, the appellant was engaged in an altercation with the second respondent (‘complainant’) over the issue of drainage of water. It was alleged that during this altercation, the appellant verbally hurled caste related abuses towards the complainant and his family members, and subsequently physically assaulted the complainant causing him multiple injuries.

Consequently, on 20-01-2016, a First Information Report (‘FIR’) was registered against the appellant under sections 323 and 504, Indian Penal Code, 1860  and 3(1)(x), the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Investigating Officer (‘IO’) reached to the conclusion, after a day’s investigation, that there were materials against the appellant to send him up for trial and consequently, a charge-sheet dated 21-01-2016 under sections 323, 504, IPC and 3(1)(x), SC/ST Act was filed against the appellant to which the court took cognisance of the offence on 03-05-2016.

The appellant, however, intended to lodge an F.I.R. arising out of the same incident as he had alleged that he was badly beaten up by the complainant and his son with canes and lathis, as a result of which he too sustained injuries. He contended that upon his allegation, the police refused to register the FIR,  instead, the appellant was challaned and kept under detention by the inspector-in-charge under sections 151, 107, and 116, Cr. PC, though he was subsequently released upon furnishing a bail bond.

A second FIR was registered for the offences under sections 323, 325, 392, 452, 504, 506, IPC against the complainant. Previously the appellant had also instituted a suit before the civil court seeking permanent injunction against the complainant’s continued encroachment upon the appellant’s land which was pending consideration.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid charge-sheet, the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court  under section 482, Cr. PC seeking quashing thereof as well as the criminal proceedings against him on the grounds that the said charge sheet disclosed no offence and the present prosecution had been instituted with mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment. The same was dismissed vide the impugned judgment and order.

The Bench noted that the  first F.I.R., registered at the instance of the complainant, was silent about the place of occurrence and who, being a member of the public, was present when the appellant was alleged to have hurled caste related abuses at the complainant. However, on a reading of the second F.I.R. registered at the behest of the appellant, it appears that the incident took place at the house of the appellant.

The Bench navigates through the first question that called for an answer that whether it was at a place within public view that the appellant hurled caste related abuses at the complainant with an intent to insult or intimidate or humiliate him. From the charge-sheet dated 21-01-2016 filed by the IO, it appeared that the prosecution would seek to rely on the evidence of 3 witnesses to drive home the charge against the appellant of committing the aforesaid offences. These 3 witnesses were the family members of the complainant. It was noted t hat neither the first F.I.R. nor the charge-sheet referred to the presence of a fifth individual (a member of the public) at the place of occurrence.

The Bench stated that since the utterances made by the appellant were not ‘in any place within public view’, the basic ingredient for attracting section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was missing. It was therefore, held that at the relevant point of time of the incident, no member of the public was present. It was held that “assuming  arguendo that the appellant had hurled caste related abuses at the complainant with a view to insult or humiliate him, the same does not advance the case of the complainant any further to bring it within the ambit of section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.”

“The legislative intent seems to be clear that every insult or intimidation for humiliation to a person would not amount to an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act unless, of course, such insult or intimidation is targeted at the victim because of he being a member of a particular Scheduled Caste or Tribe. If one calls another an idiot (bewaqoof) or a fool (murkh) or a thief (chor) in any place within public view, this would obviously constitute an act intended to insult or humiliate by user of abusive or offensive language.”observed the Court.

The Bench stated that even if the same was directed generally to a person, who happened to be a SC or ST, per se, it would not be sufficient to attract section 3(1)(x) unless such words were laced with casteist remarks.  “Since section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars invocation of the court’s jurisdiction under section 438, Cr.PC and having regard to the overriding effect of the SC/ST Act over other laws, it was desirable that before an accused wss subjected to a trial for alleged commission of offence under section 3(1)(x), the utterances made by him in any place within public view were outlined, if not in the F.I.R., but at least in the charge-sheet so as to enable the Court to ascertain whether the charge sheet makes out a case of an offence under the SC/ST Act having been committed for forming a proper opinion in the conspectus of the situation before it, prior to taking cognisance of the offence.”

The Court was of the view that even for the limited test that haD to be applied in a case of the present nature, the charge-sheet dated 21-01-2016 did not make out any case of an offence having been committed by the appellant under section 3(1)(x) warranting him to stand a trial.

The second question that the Court navigated through was whether the criminal proceedings against the appellant should be allowed to be taken further in view of the appellant facing accusation of offences punishable under sections 323 and 504 of IPC.

It was noted that the allegation in the first F.I.R. was that the appellant had beaten up the complainant for which he sustained multiple injuries. Although the complainant alleged that such incident was witnessed by many persons and that he sustained injuries on his hand, the charge-sheet does neither refer to any eye-witness other than the complainant’s wife and son nor to any medical report. The nature of hurt suffered by the complainant in the process is neither reflected from the first F.I.R. nor the charge-sheet. On the contrary, the appellant had the injuries suffered by him treated immediately after the incident.

“If indeed the complainant’s version were to be believed, the I.O. ought to have asked for a medical report to support the same. Completion of investigation within a day in a given case could be appreciated but in the present case it has resulted in more disservice than service to the cause of justice. ”

The Court stated that the situation became all the more glaring when in course of this proceeding the parties, including the first respondent were unable to apprise the Court the outcome of the second F.I.R. thus it did not find any ring of truth in the prosecution case to allow the proceedings to continue vis-à-vis section 323 of IPC.

The Bench hesitated in holding that even though the appellant might have abused the complainant but such abuse by itself and without anything more does not warrant subjecting the appellant to face a trial, particularly in the clear absence of the ingredient of intentional insult of such a degree that it could provoke a person to break public peace or commit any other offence.

The bench was of the view that the High Court misdirected itself in failing to appreciate the challenge to the criminal proceedings including the charge-sheet in the proper perspective and occasioned a grave failure of justice in rejecting such challenge. Accordingly, while setting aside the criminal case, stated that it would be an abuse of the process of law to allow continuation of Criminal Case