Caste-based insults at a private residence do not attract the SC/ST Act absent proof of public view.

The petitioner alleged that Opposite Party No. 2, proprietor of Jai Maa Kali Rice Mill, obtained 17 truckloads of Mansuri rice on credit between 30 January and 8 February 2014 for a total value of ₹52,82,803. After payment of ₹36,16,000, ₹16,66,803 allegedly remained due. The parties subsequently executed an agreement on 31 July 2016 for repayment by January 2017, but the amount allegedly remained unpaid.

The petitioner further alleged that, when he demanded payment on 3 December 2021, Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 abused and assaulted him and used caste-based insults. He filed Complaint Case No. 10 of 2022 alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

The Special Court dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. on 13 December 2022. The petitioner challenged that order before the High Court.

The High Court noted that the complaint arose substantially out of a business transaction and outstanding monetary liability, with allegations of abuse, assault and caste-based insults added to the dispute.

1. Whether the Special Court acted illegally in dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. despite the complainant’s allegations and the statements of the inquiry witnesses?

2. Whether the allegations disclosed offences under Sections 406, 420, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC warranting criminal prosecution, or whether the complaint was essentially an attempt to recover a civil/business debt through criminal proceedings?

3. Whether the alleged caste-based abuses satisfied the requirements of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, particularly the requirement that the insult or intimidation occur in a place within public view?

The Court considered Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., which permits dismissal of a complaint where, after examining the complainant and considering the inquiry material, there is insufficient ground for proceeding. It also considered Sections 406, 420, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court relied on Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar, (2023) 11 SCC 607, for the principle that criminal proceedings cannot be used as a means of arm-twisting or recovery of money.

It further relied on Ramkrishna Chauhan v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1676, for the principle that an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act requires the basic ingredients of caste-based insult or intimidation to be established, including occurrence in a place within public view where applicable.

The Court also invoked State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly category 7, concerning criminal proceedings instituted maliciously or with an ulterior motive.

The High Court examined the complaint, the complainant’s solemn affirmation and the inquiry-witness statements and found that the dominant dispute concerned recovery of ₹16,66,803 arising from business dealings.

The witnesses’ responses to the Court’s questions reinforced that the complaint was primarily connected with the outstanding business amount, although allegations of abuse and assault were also made.

Applying Bimla Tiwari, the Court held that criminal process could not be employed principally to secure recovery of the alleged debt.

Regarding the SC/ST Act allegations, the Court accepted the finding that the occurrence took place at Opposite Party No. 2’s house and that the material did not state that the alleged caste-based abuses were uttered in the presence or hearing of members of the public. Consequently, the statutory requirement of occurrence in a place within public view was not established.

In light of the essentially civil nature of the dispute, the insufficient material supporting the alleged criminal offences, and the apparent ulterior purpose of pursuing monetary recovery, the Court treated the complaint as falling within the Bhajan Lal category of malicious prosecution.

It further held that the SC/ST Act allegations were not made out because the alleged occurrence was at the house of Opposite Party No. 2 and was not shown to have taken place in a place within public view.

The application was accordingly dismissed, and the order dated 13 December 2022 dismissing Complaint Case No. 10 of 2022 under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. was left undisturbed.