SC/ST act violation requires public view, Allahabad HC asserts

The Allahabad High Court has said that an alleged act of intentional insult or intimidation causing humiliation would constitute an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 only if it is committed in public view.

While partly allowing an application filed by Pintu Singh and two others, Justice Vikram D Chauhan quashed the criminal proceedings against the three persons (applicants) in respect of offence under section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.

An FIR against the applicants was lodged in November 2017 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act with the allegations that the accused persons, who are seven in number including the applicants, entered the house of the complainant and uttered caste-based remark and also assaulted him and his family members.

More from India

'First Assam visit after Op Sindoor': PM Modi inaugurates projects worth Rs 18,530 cr India to host fifth Coast Guard Global Summit in Chennai in 2027

During the court proceedings, it was argued that the offence was committed in the complainant’s house, which is not a public place and was not in public view, and hence, no offence would be made out under section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.

This provision under the SC/ST Act makes it an offence to intentionally insult or intimidate with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.

Though the state government’s counsel opposed the applicants’ plea, he could not dispute that the incident allegedly occurred in the complainant’s house.

At the outset, the court noted that the site plan filed by the counsel for the applicants would indicate that “the place of the incident is the informant’s house, which is not a public place”.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

'New dawn': PM Modi meets Manipur violence victims in first visit since 2023 unrest

CP Radhakrishnan takes oath as Vice President of India

The court further observed that a perusal of the complainant’s statement under section 161 of CrPC and the FIR demonstrated that no public member was in the house where the alleged incident is said to have occurred.

Against this backdrop, the court in its decision dated May 10 noted that the offence should have been committed in public view, perusing the mandate of section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.

“Once the offence has not taken place in public view the provisions of section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act would not be attracted and as such the same cannot be proceeded with,” the court remarked while quashing the proceedings in respect of section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.