Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1397
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO.14100 OF 2025)
SOHANVIR @ SOHANVIR DHAMA & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E NT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been preferred assailing the
th
judgment dated 8 July, 2025 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, whereby Criminal Appeal No. 729
of 2025 filed by the Appellants was dismissed. The said
appeal was instituted under Section 14-A(1) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
1
Atrocities) Act, 1989 , seeking to set aside the order dated
th
12 September, 2024 passed by the Trial Court
summoning the Appellants to face trial for offences
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.12.08
18:41:59 IST
Reason:
1
In short, “SC/ST Act”
Page 1 of 8
punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal
2
Code and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
3. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal
may be summarized as follows:
3.1. Respondent No. 2 belongs to the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes community and was employed
as a sweeper in the village. According to Respondent No.
2, Appellant No. 1 allegedly compelled her on multiple
occasions to remove garbage from his house and, upon
her refusal, threatened to implicate her and her children
in criminal proceedings.
rd
3.2. It is the case of the Respondent No.2 that, on 23 July,
2023, while she was sweeping in the morning, the
Appellant No.1 along with his son, Appellant No.2, and
servant, Appellant No.3, began hurling abuses at her,
assaulting her and thereafter started forcing themselves
upon her.
3.3. Respondent No.2 alleges that she ran back to her house,
but the Appellants chased her, entered her house and
directed caste-based abuses at her. It is further claimed
that they tore her clothes, threatened her and thereafter
left the premises. On the following day, it is further
alleged that the Appellants assaulted her son. When the
Respondent No.2 approached the Police Station to lodge
2
In short, “IPC”
Page 2 of 8
a complaint, the police allegedly refused to do so under
the influence of Appellant No.1.
th
3.4. Based on these events, on 6 October, 2023, the
Respondent No.2 filed an application under Section
3
156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before
the Special Judge which led to the registration of
nd
Complaint No.64/2023 on 2 December, 2023 under
Sections 323, 504 of IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act
against the Appellants. A separate complaint was also
th
filed before the National Commission for Women on 26
July, 2023 against the Appellants regarding the same
incidents.
3.5. The Appellants dispute all these allegations and contend
that Respondent No.2 has withheld material facts and
initiated the proceedings as a counter-blast. They
contend that the allegations are false and the Respondent
No.2’s son was never medically examined and no injury
report was placed on the record. The delay in filing of
complaint by the Respondent No.2 also casts doubt on
their motive.
th
3.6. The Appellants assert that, on 24 July, 2023, it was the
complainant’s son who assaulted Appellant No.3 with a
sharp-edged weapon with the intention to kill, causing
multiple injuries. It is further alleged that he also
3
In short, “CrPC”
Page 3 of 8
attempted to assault Appellant No.1. Consequently, FIR
No.0179/2023 was registered on the same day under
Sections 307 and 308 of IPC against the son of
Respondent No.2.
th
4. Vide order dated 12 September, 2024, the Special Judge
issued summons to the Appellants under Sections 323 and
504 of the IPC, and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The
Appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No.729/2025 under
Section 14-A (1) of the SC/ST Act before the High Court,
challenging the said summoning order, wherein the
impugned order was passed.
5. The High Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the
Criminal Appeal and upheld the order of the Trial Court.
The High Court observed that on a prima facie evaluation
of the material on record, the allegations disclosed
cognizable offences and that there existed sufficient
material to justify the summoning of the Appellants to face
trial.
6. The High Court held that the complainant’s son was beaten
by the Appellants on a public road, in public view, thereby
bringing the incident within the ambit of the offence
contemplated under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The
High Court further observed that the complaint itself
indicates that a portion of the alleged occurrence took place
Page 4 of 8
outside the complainant’s house, which constitutes a
public place within public view.
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and have carefully perused the material
on record.
8. The learned counsel for the Appellants contends that the
offence alleged under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act is not
made out, as one of the essential ingredients of the
provision, namely, that the caste-related abuse must occur
“within public view”, is absent in the present case. It is
submitted that the allegations themselves indicate that the
alleged abuses were uttered within the Respondent No.2-
complainant’s residence, away from public view.
9. In order to examine this contention, it is necessary to refer
to Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which reads as under:
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities. — (1) Whoever,
not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe, —
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public
view;”
10. The expression “any place within public view” has been
interpreted by this Court in numerous decisions, most
recently in Karuppudayar v. State represented by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi, Trichy &
Page 5 of 8
4
Others . Relying on Hitesh Verma v. State of
5
Uttarakhand , this Court reaffirmed that:
“11. It could thus be seen that, to be a place
‘within public view’, the place should be open where
the members of the public can witness or hear the
utterance made by the accused to the victim. If the
alleged offence takes place within the four corners of
the wall where members of the public are not
present, then it cannot be said that it has taken
place at a place within public view.”
11. A perusal of the Application filed by the complainant under
Section 156(3) of the CrPC reveals that the alleged casteist
abuses were stated to have been used by the Appellants
inside the premises of the complainant. This circumstance,
on its face, does not satisfy the statutory requirement that
the abuses were made “in any place within public view,”
which is an essential component of the offence under
Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The house of the
complainant cannot be considered to be within public view.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 2 has
not been able to show that the complaint or the statement
recorded under Section 200 CrPC contained any specific
averment that the caste based abuses were hurled at a
place within public view.
4
2025 INSC 132
5
(2020) 10 SCC 710
Page 6 of 8
13. In our considered view, the High Court erred in concluding
that the incident occurred in public view. A careful reading
of the complaint makes it evident that the alleged caste-
based abuses were uttered inside the premises, in the
presence of the Appellants and Respondent No. 2.
Therefore, the essential requirement of the offence under
Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act is not satisfied.
14. Upon consideration of the submissions and scrutiny of the
material placed on record, we find merit in the contention
raised on behalf of the Appellants insofar as the
applicability of the SC/ST Act is concerned. On the
allegations as they stand, a prima facie case under Section
3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act is not made out against the
Appellants.
15. It is beyond dispute that the appellate powers are to be
invoked with due caution, and only in exceptional
circumstances. It is equally well established that the Court
cannot delve into the truthfulness or credibility of the
allegations contained in the FIR or complaint. The
Appellate Court has to examine the contents of the
complaint as they stand. In the facts of the present case,
the High Court ought to have exercised its appellate powers
to quash the summoning order with respect to offences
under the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
Page 7 of 8
16. In view of the foregoing discussion and having found that
the essential ingredients of the offence under Section
3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act are not prima facie satisfied, we
deem it appropriate to interfere to that limited extent.
Accordingly, the proceedings initiated against the
Appellants under the Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act are
hereby quashed. However, the trial insofar as it pertains to
the remaining offences under the IPC shall proceed in
accordance with law.
th
17. The impugned judgment of the High Court dated July 8 ,
2025 in Criminal Appeal No.729 of 2025 is hereby set aside
in part to the extent indicated above. Appeal stands partly
allowed.
18. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
………………………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………………………………………..J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 08, 2025
Page 8 of 8
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO.14100 OF 2025)
SOHANVIR @ SOHANVIR DHAMA & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E NT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been preferred assailing the
th
judgment dated 8 July, 2025 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, whereby Criminal Appeal No. 729
of 2025 filed by the Appellants was dismissed. The said
appeal was instituted under Section 14-A(1) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
1
Atrocities) Act, 1989 , seeking to set aside the order dated
th
12 September, 2024 passed by the Trial Court
summoning the Appellants to face trial for offences
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.12.08
18:41:59 IST
Reason:
1
In short, “SC/ST Act”
Page 1 of 8
punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal
2
Code and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
3. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal
may be summarized as follows:
3.1. Respondent No. 2 belongs to the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes community and was employed
as a sweeper in the village. According to Respondent No.
2, Appellant No. 1 allegedly compelled her on multiple
occasions to remove garbage from his house and, upon
her refusal, threatened to implicate her and her children
in criminal proceedings.
rd
3.2. It is the case of the Respondent No.2 that, on 23 July,
2023, while she was sweeping in the morning, the
Appellant No.1 along with his son, Appellant No.2, and
servant, Appellant No.3, began hurling abuses at her,
assaulting her and thereafter started forcing themselves
upon her.
3.3. Respondent No.2 alleges that she ran back to her house,
but the Appellants chased her, entered her house and
directed caste-based abuses at her. It is further claimed
that they tore her clothes, threatened her and thereafter
left the premises. On the following day, it is further
alleged that the Appellants assaulted her son. When the
Respondent No.2 approached the Police Station to lodge
2
In short, “IPC”
Page 2 of 8
a complaint, the police allegedly refused to do so under
the influence of Appellant No.1.
th
3.4. Based on these events, on 6 October, 2023, the
Respondent No.2 filed an application under Section
3
156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before
the Special Judge which led to the registration of
nd
Complaint No.64/2023 on 2 December, 2023 under
Sections 323, 504 of IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act
against the Appellants. A separate complaint was also
th
filed before the National Commission for Women on 26
July, 2023 against the Appellants regarding the same
incidents.
3.5. The Appellants dispute all these allegations and contend
that Respondent No.2 has withheld material facts and
initiated the proceedings as a counter-blast. They
contend that the allegations are false and the Respondent
No.2’s son was never medically examined and no injury
report was placed on the record. The delay in filing of
complaint by the Respondent No.2 also casts doubt on
their motive.
th
3.6. The Appellants assert that, on 24 July, 2023, it was the
complainant’s son who assaulted Appellant No.3 with a
sharp-edged weapon with the intention to kill, causing
multiple injuries. It is further alleged that he also
3
In short, “CrPC”
Page 3 of 8
attempted to assault Appellant No.1. Consequently, FIR
No.0179/2023 was registered on the same day under
Sections 307 and 308 of IPC against the son of
Respondent No.2.
th
4. Vide order dated 12 September, 2024, the Special Judge
issued summons to the Appellants under Sections 323 and
504 of the IPC, and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The
Appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No.729/2025 under
Section 14-A (1) of the SC/ST Act before the High Court,
challenging the said summoning order, wherein the
impugned order was passed.
5. The High Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the
Criminal Appeal and upheld the order of the Trial Court.
The High Court observed that on a prima facie evaluation
of the material on record, the allegations disclosed
cognizable offences and that there existed sufficient
material to justify the summoning of the Appellants to face
trial.
6. The High Court held that the complainant’s son was beaten
by the Appellants on a public road, in public view, thereby
bringing the incident within the ambit of the offence
contemplated under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The
High Court further observed that the complaint itself
indicates that a portion of the alleged occurrence took place
Page 4 of 8
outside the complainant’s house, which constitutes a
public place within public view.
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and have carefully perused the material
on record.
8. The learned counsel for the Appellants contends that the
offence alleged under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act is not
made out, as one of the essential ingredients of the
provision, namely, that the caste-related abuse must occur
“within public view”, is absent in the present case. It is
submitted that the allegations themselves indicate that the
alleged abuses were uttered within the Respondent No.2-
complainant’s residence, away from public view.
9. In order to examine this contention, it is necessary to refer
to Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which reads as under:
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities. — (1) Whoever,
not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe, —
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public
view;”
10. The expression “any place within public view” has been
interpreted by this Court in numerous decisions, most
recently in Karuppudayar v. State represented by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi, Trichy &
Page 5 of 8
4
Others . Relying on Hitesh Verma v. State of
5
Uttarakhand , this Court reaffirmed that:
“11. It could thus be seen that, to be a place
‘within public view’, the place should be open where
the members of the public can witness or hear the
utterance made by the accused to the victim. If the
alleged offence takes place within the four corners of
the wall where members of the public are not
present, then it cannot be said that it has taken
place at a place within public view.”
11. A perusal of the Application filed by the complainant under
Section 156(3) of the CrPC reveals that the alleged casteist
abuses were stated to have been used by the Appellants
inside the premises of the complainant. This circumstance,
on its face, does not satisfy the statutory requirement that
the abuses were made “in any place within public view,”
which is an essential component of the offence under
Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The house of the
complainant cannot be considered to be within public view.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 2 has
not been able to show that the complaint or the statement
recorded under Section 200 CrPC contained any specific
averment that the caste based abuses were hurled at a
place within public view.
4
2025 INSC 132
5
(2020) 10 SCC 710
Page 6 of 8
13. In our considered view, the High Court erred in concluding
that the incident occurred in public view. A careful reading
of the complaint makes it evident that the alleged caste-
based abuses were uttered inside the premises, in the
presence of the Appellants and Respondent No. 2.
Therefore, the essential requirement of the offence under
Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act is not satisfied.
14. Upon consideration of the submissions and scrutiny of the
material placed on record, we find merit in the contention
raised on behalf of the Appellants insofar as the
applicability of the SC/ST Act is concerned. On the
allegations as they stand, a prima facie case under Section
3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act is not made out against the
Appellants.
15. It is beyond dispute that the appellate powers are to be
invoked with due caution, and only in exceptional
circumstances. It is equally well established that the Court
cannot delve into the truthfulness or credibility of the
allegations contained in the FIR or complaint. The
Appellate Court has to examine the contents of the
complaint as they stand. In the facts of the present case,
the High Court ought to have exercised its appellate powers
to quash the summoning order with respect to offences
under the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
Page 7 of 8
16. In view of the foregoing discussion and having found that
the essential ingredients of the offence under Section
3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act are not prima facie satisfied, we
deem it appropriate to interfere to that limited extent.
Accordingly, the proceedings initiated against the
Appellants under the Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act are
hereby quashed. However, the trial insofar as it pertains to
the remaining offences under the IPC shall proceed in
accordance with law.
th
17. The impugned judgment of the High Court dated July 8 ,
2025 in Criminal Appeal No.729 of 2025 is hereby set aside
in part to the extent indicated above. Appeal stands partly
allowed.
18. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
………………………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………………………………………..J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 08, 2025
Page 8 of 8