Abuse of Process and Failure to Meet "Public View" Requirement Vitiates Complaint Under Atrocity Act

The applicants sought quashing of FIR C.R. No. 11191027220283 registered at Karanj Police Station.

The complainant, a workers' leader at Continental Mill, alleged that on February 22, 2022, in the lobby of the Majur Mahajan Sangh office, Applicant No. 1 used the caste-based slur "sālā ḍheḍā," followed by similar abuses and death threats from Applicants No. 2 and 3.

The applicants contended the FIR was a retaliatory measure and a misuse of the Atrocity Act, noting a history of similar false complaints and a prior acquittal in 2014 where the same witness was cited.

1. Whether the alleged incident occurred "in any place within public view" as required to constitute an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

2. Whether the initiation of the criminal proceedings was a "bad faith exercise" intended to wreak vengeance or settle personal scores.

3. Whether the ingredients for criminal intimidation under Section 506(2) and obscene acts under Section 294(b) of the IPC were satisfied.

Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Sections 506(2), 294(b), and 114 of the IPC.

Swaran Singh v. State settled that a "place within public view" requires the presence of independent members of the public, not just friends or relatives.

Under Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P., the court has a duty to scrutinize FIRs more closely if they appear frivolous or motivated by personal grudge.

Konde Nageshwar Rao v. A. Srirama Chandra Murty established that the misuse of the SC/ST Act to settle personal scores must be stopped at the outset.

Regarding Section 506(2) IPC, Vikram Johar v. State of U.P. requires proof of an intent to "cause alarm" to the complainant.

The court found that the lobby of the office where the incident allegedly took place was not "within public view" because the only witnesses were two friends/acquaintances of the complainant, failing the requirement for independent public presence.

Scrutinizing the "attending circumstances," the court noted the complainant’s habitual filing of false FIRs, a prior acquittal involving the same parties, and a representation from dozens of workers (including SC/ST members) denying the incident occurred.

The court observed the complainant's narrative—staying to chat with friends after being threatened twice by different individuals—was "highly improbable and unnatural".

Applying the Salib protocol, the court determined the FIR was weaponized to pressure the applicants after previous failures to implicate others.

Regarding the IPC sections, the court found no evidence of intent to cause alarm (Section 506) or that the words were uttered in a public place as contemplated by Section 294(b).

The FIR No. 11191027220283 and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside. The application was allowed, and Rule was made absolute.