Caste-based abuse outside public view does not constitute offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioners had attempted to dispossess her, disconnected her water supply, and later closed a pathway between their houses.

A civil suit concerning the dispute was pending, and an interim status quo order had been made.

She further alleged that the petitioners abused her by referring to her caste.

Following investigation, police filed a charge sheet alleging offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC and provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, contending that the allegations were omnibus, the alleged caste abuse was not said to have occurred within public view, and the criminal case arose from the civil dispute.

The respondent No. 2 did not appear at the hearing.

1. Whether the charge-sheet material disclosed the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, particularly the requirement that the alleged insult or caste-based abuse occur in a place within public view.

2. Whether the allegations disclosed the ingredients of offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, or whether continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process given the pending civil dispute and the nature of the allegations.

Section 482 CrPC permits the High Court to quash proceedings where, even accepting the allegations at face value, the essential ingredients of an offence are absent or continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.

Under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate, or caste-name abuse, must occur in a place “within public view”; a private place may qualify only if members of the public can witness or hear the conduct (Swaran Singh v. State, Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, and Karuppudayar v. State).

Section 504 IPC requires an intentional insult, accompanied by the intention or knowledge that it is likely to provoke a breach of the peace or another offence; mere abuse or rudeness is insufficient (Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P. and B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana).

In assessing a claim that proceedings are vexatious or retaliatory, the court may consider the surrounding circumstances and investigation materials, while avoiding a trial of the evidence (Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.).

The Court found that the complaint and charge-sheet materials did not identify a specific incident of caste abuse occurring in a place within public view.

Even assuming the alleged caste abuse occurred, the necessary public-view ingredient was not established.

The materials also contained only omnibus allegations that the petitioners closed the pathway, without facts showing the intentional insult and requisite likelihood of provocation required by Section 504 IPC; the Court additionally found no sufficient basis in the charge-sheet materials for the alleged IPC offences.

Considering the pending civil suit and the surrounding circumstances, the Court concluded that the complaint sought to give a criminal character to the parties’ civil dispute and that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process.

The Court concluded that the complaint sought to give a criminal character to the parties’ civil dispute and that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in Spl.C. No. 994/2023, arising from Crime No. 49/2022, against the petitioners for the offences specified in the order.