Caste-based abuse inside a home without public view does not attract the SC/ST Act.

The Court heard three connected criminal petitions arising from cross-proceedings between the parties.

In Crl.P. No. 3852/2020, the accused sought to set aside the rejection of their discharge application and quash proceedings alleging offences under Sections 323 and 504 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The complaint alleged that an incident occurred inside a house on 14 October 2018; the trial court had rejected the discharge application.

In Crl.P. No. 499/2019, M.G. Raghavendra sought to quash an FIR alleging offences under Sections 420, 500, 507 and 509 IPC, arising from a complaint concerning alleged defamatory statements.

In Crl.P. No. 500/2019, M.G. Raghavendra and others sought to quash proceedings alleging, among other offences, Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; the Court considered the allegations sufficient to warrant investigation.

1. Whether the allegations of caste-based abuse made in connection with an incident inside a private house could sustain proceedings under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC/ST Act

2. Whether the complaint in Crl.P. No. 499/2019 disclosed the ingredients of Section 420 IPC so as to support registration of an FIR, and what effect that had on the other alleged offences

3. Whether the allegations in Crl.P. No. 500/2019 warranted quashing of the proceedings concerning Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act

The Court considered Sections 323, 504, 34, 420, 498A, 500, 507 and 509 IPC; Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; and Sections 227 and 482 Cr.P.C.

It treated the public-view requirement as necessary to attract the invoked SC/ST Act provisions and held that, absent the ingredients of Section 420 IPC, that cognizable offence could not provide the basis for the FIR in Crl.P. No. 499/2019.

It also relied on Dineshbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104, in support of investigation to ascertain the truth where the complaint discloses serious allegations.

The Court concluded that the alleged incident underlying Crl.P. No. 3852/2020 took place within the house, without public view, and therefore set aside the proceedings under the SC/ST Act; it left the IPC allegations, including assault supported by a wound certificate, to proceed before the competent court.

In Crl.P. No. 499/2019, it found no complaint averments establishing the ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC.

It accordingly quashed the FIR proceedings while leaving the police at liberty to act in accordance with law regarding the other alleged offences.

In Crl.P. No. 500/2019, the Court considered the allegations under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act serious enough to require investigation.

It also observed that Section 149 IPC was inapplicable on the stated facts and that the investigating officer could invoke Section 34 IPC instead.

Crl.P. No. 499/2019 was allowed and the proceedings in FIR No. 95/2018 were quashed, with liberty to the investigating officer to proceed in accordance with law.

Crl.P. No. 500/2019 was rejected, leaving the investigation into the alleged offences to continue.