Absence of Caste-Based Insult or Knowledge of Victim’s Identity Precludes Prosecution Under SC/ST Act

The Appellant challenged an order dated 06.07.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Madhepura, taking cognizance under Sections 341, 323, 504/34 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 07.10.2019, following a minor collision between the informant’s motorcycle and a bicycle ridden by a co-accused's nephew, the Appellant and others assaulted the informant, used abusive language, and looted cash and a mobile phone.

The Appellant contended that the FIR was delayed by two days, no injuries were found, and there were no specific allegations of caste-based abuse in the FIR.

Whether the allegations in the FIR and materials collected during investigation prima facie constitute an offence under Section 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act against the Appellant.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the cognizance order in part or in whole.

The court applied the principles governing the quashing of criminal proceedings as established in *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal* [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], specifically regarding cases where allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence or are manifestly attended with mala fides.

It further relied on *Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand* [(2020) 10 SCC 710] and *Ishwar Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.* [(2018) 13 SCC 612], which affirm that a charge-sheet can be quashed in part if the intervention is required to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

The court also examined the statutory requirements of Section 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which necessitates intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe in public view.

The Court observed that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet contained any "whispering of allegation" that the Appellant used caste-based slurs or intended to humiliate the informant specifically because of his caste identity.

It noted that there was no evidence suggesting the Appellant even knew the informant belonged to the SC/ST community at the time of the incident.

Consequently, the Court found that the essential ingredients for an offence under the SC/ST Act were missing.

However, regarding the IPC offences (Sections 341, 323, etc.), the Court held that the Appellant’s arguments involved disputed factual aspects that could only be determined during a full trial.

It quashed the impugned order dated 06.07.2022 and the charge-sheet specifically regarding Section 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

However, it declined to interfere with the cognizance taken for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 379, 504, and 54 of the IPC.

The Special Court was directed to transfer the record to a Regular Court for the trial of the remaining IPC offences.