Client And Mother Face SC/ST Atrocities Trial Over Alleged Caste Abuse Of Advocate In Front Of Her Clients: Karnataka HC

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 and 2, sought to quash proceedings in Special Case No. 2163 of 2025, arising from a complaint by the first petitioner’s former advocate.

The complainant alleged that the petitioners abused and humiliated her by referring to her Scheduled Caste status at her office in the presence of clients, and also made caste-based and defamatory online reviews.

Police investigated and filed a charge sheet alleging offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The petitioners sought quashing on the ground that the allegations did not disclose the ingredients of the offences.

Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act penalise, respectively, intentional insult or intimidation intended to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, and abuse of such a person by caste name, in a place within public view.

In Swaran Singh v. State, the Supreme Court distinguished a “place within public view” from a “public place”: a privately owned place may qualify if members of the public are present, and whether the words were used with intent to insult or humiliate is ordinarily a question of evidence.

The Court considered the petition under its inherent jurisdiction, referring to Section 482 of the CrPC.

The Court considered that the complaint and charge sheet alleged caste-based abuse at the complainant’s office in the presence of clients.

Although the office was not necessarily a public place, the presence of clients could bring the alleged conduct within “public view”; whether the petitioners used the words with the requisite intent required evidence.

The Court also noted allegations of caste-based content in online reviews.

Applying Swaran Singh, it held that these allegations prima facie disclosed offences under the SC/ST Act and that the petitioners’ defence should be tested at trial.

It likewise declined to quash the allegation under Section 352 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS.

It found no basis to exercise its quashing jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioners to present their defence before the trial court.