Caste-based abuse inside a closed chamber does not constitute an offence occurring in public view.

The complainant, a Scheduled Caste member and Statistical Officer at Kishanganj, alleged that on 26 August 2017 he visited the appellant’s chamber, where the appellant was serving as District Magistrate, to discuss an official file.

The appellant allegedly became angry and abused him using caste-related and vulgar expressions, causing humiliation.

After the complainant’s alleged attempt to lodge an FIR at the SC/ST Police Station was unsuccessful, he instituted a complaint on 12 September 2017.

The Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kishanganj, took cognizance on 20 September 2017 of offences under Sections 3(1)(r), (s), (u), (v) and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and issued summons to the appellant.

The appellant challenged the cognizance order, contending principally that the alleged incident occurred inside a closed chamber and therefore not at a “place within public view,” and that the cognizance order had been passed hastily without proper examination of the materials.

1. Whether the alleged caste-based abuse inside the appellant’s closed chamber constituted an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC/ST Act, particularly when the incident did not occur at a “place within public view”

2. Whether the allegations disclosed offences under Sections 3(1)(u), 3(1)(v) and 4 of the SC/ST Act

3. Whether the Special Judge’s order taking cognizance, passed shortly after filing of the complaint and without proper scrutiny of the materials, was legally sustainable

The Court applied Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u), 3(1)(v) and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Sections 3(1)(r) and (s), as relevant to the case, require the alleged intentional insult, intimidation or caste-based abuse to occur in a place within public view.

The Court relied on Gunjan alias Girija Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 834, which followed Karuppudayar v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 215, for the principle that a place is “within public view” only where members of the public can witness or hear the alleged utterance; an incident occurring within the four walls of a chamber, where members of the public are not present, does not satisfy that requirement.

The Court also applied the requirement that cognizance must be taken upon proper scrutiny and application of mind to the complaint materials.

The Court found that the alleged abuse occurred inside the appellant’s chamber, and therefore outside a place within public view as understood in Gunjan and Karuppudayar.

Consequently, the foundational requirement for the alleged offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) was absent.

The Court further noted that the allegations did not disclose the additional acts contemplated under Sections 3(1)(u) and (v), or neglect of duties punishable under Section 4, as asserted by the appellant.

Independently, the Court considered the cognizance order legally infirm because it was passed only eight days after institution of the complaint, without proper scrutiny of the materials or examination of even a single named enquiry witness.

These circumstances demonstrated haste and lack of adequate application of mind.

It held that the alleged incident inside the closed chamber did not occur at a place within public view and that the cognizance order suffered from haste and insufficient application of mind.

Accordingly, the order dated 20 September 2017 taking cognizance in Complaint Case No. 37C of 2017/Special Case No. 57 of 2017 under Sections 3(1)(r), (s), (u), (v) and 4 of the SC/ST Act was set aside.

The appeal was allowed.