Caste-based insults inside a private house, absent public view, do not attract Section 3(1)(r) or (s) of the SC/ST Act.

The petitioners invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the order dated 19 May 2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Bermo at Tenughat, in C.P. Case No. 153 of 2017.

By that order, the Magistrate found a prima facie case under Sections 323 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”).

The complainant, a para-legal volunteer, alleged that petitioner no. 2, the Mukhiya of Kasmar Panchayat, had removed a complaint box and legal-aid board installed in the Panchayat office and had changed the lock.

When the complainant went to the petitioners’ residence to inquire about the same, petitioner no. 1 allegedly abused and threatened him, using caste-related words and stating that, being a Brahmin, he would not permit a person belonging to the “Dhobi” caste to sit in the office.

On the basis of the complaint, the complainant’s solemn-affirmation statement, and the inquiry witnesses’ statements, the Magistrate found the aforesaid offences prima facie established.

1. Whether the allegations disclosed the ingredients of an offence under Section 323 IPC in the absence of any allegation that the petitioners caused bodily pain, disease, or infirmity to the complainant?

2. Whether the allegations disclosed an offence under Section 353 IPC when there was no allegation that a public servant was assaulted or subjected to criminal force while discharging official duty?

3. Whether the Magistrate could take cognizance of an offence under the SC/ST Act after constitution of a Special Court under that Act?

4. Whether the allegations constituted offences under Sections 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act when the alleged caste-based abuse occurred inside the petitioners’ residence and not in a place within public view?

5. Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC?

Section 323 IPC requires that the accused voluntarily cause bodily pain, disease, or infirmity to the victim, with the requisite intention or knowledge.

Section 353 IPC requires assault or use of criminal force against a public servant who is acting in the discharge of official duty, accompanied by the requisite intention to prevent or deter such discharge, or arising from an act done or attempted by the public servant.

Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act criminalise intentional insult, intimidation, or caste-based abuse of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, but require that the conduct occur in a place within public view.

The Court relied on Gunjan @ Girija Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 834, for the requirement that the alleged occurrence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) must take place in a place within public view.

It further held that, after constitution of the statutory Special Court, the Magistrate’s taking cognizance under the SC/ST Act was an irregularity, though a curable one; additionally, the Magistrate was required to specify the particular sub-section of Section 3 invoked.

Under Section 482 CrPC, proceedings may be quashed where, even accepting the allegations in their entirety, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are absent and continuation would constitute abuse of process.

The Court held that the allegations did not satisfy Section 323 IPC because they contained no assertion that either petitioner caused bodily pain, disease, or infirmity to the complainant.

Section 353 IPC was also held inapplicable because the record contained no material showing that any public servant had been assaulted, subjected to criminal force, or obstructed while discharging official duty.

Although the allegations could, in substance, suggest intentional caste-based insult or abuse under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the alleged incident occurred inside the petitioners’ house, in the presence only of the petitioners and the complainant.

The Court found no material indicating that the incident occurred in a place within public view, an essential statutory requirement.

The Court also noted the Magistrate’s failure to identify the specific SC/ST Act provision and the jurisdictional irregularity in taking cognizance after establishment of the Special Court.

Accordingly, even if the allegations were accepted as true in their entirety, the essential elements of the offences were not made out.

It held that Sections 323 and 353 IPC were not attracted, and that the allegations did not constitute offences under Sections 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act because the alleged caste-based abuse did not occur in a place within public view.

Finding that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process, the Court quashed and set aside the Magistrate’s order dated 19 May 2017 in C.P. Case No. 153 of 2017, insofar as it concerned the petitioners.

The criminal miscellaneous petition was accordingly allowed.