Filing an SC/ST Act Complaint as a Counter-Blast to Disciplinary Proceedings Amounts to Gross Abuse of Process

The petitioners are the Managing Director, Executive Director, and employees of Malnad Alloys Casting Private Limited

Respondent No. 2 (complainant), an employee of 18 years, was issued a show-cause notice on 13.12.2024 for alleged negligence leading to production loss

Following an unsatisfactory reply and the appointment of an Enquiry Officer, the complainant challenged the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 2/2025

After the Tribunal refused to grant an ex-parte interim stay on 25.01.2025, the complainant filed the impugned FIR on 19.02.2025

The complaint alleged that between August and November 2024, the petitioners criminally intimidated him, wrongfully confined him, and hurled caste-based abuses

The petitioners moved the High Court seeking to quash Crime No. 39/2025

Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Under Sections 3(1)(r) and (s), the offense must occur in a "place within public view," a sine qua non for prosecution

Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, which held that offenses committed within the four walls of a building without public presence do not constitute "public view"

Sections 351, 352, and 127(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. to emphasize that "intent to cause alarm" is a pivotal ingredient

Quashing powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the standard for preventing abuse of process established in Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka

The Court observed that the complainant had served for 18 years without a single prior allegation of caste abuse, and the FIR was lodged only after he failed to secure interim relief from the Industrial Tribunal regarding a disciplinary inquiry

The timing of the FIR indicated a clear "arm-twisting tactic" to exert extra-judicial pressure on the management

Applying Hitesh Verma and Gunjan alias Girija Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), the court noted that the alleged abuses took place within the private premises of the company (an office room), which is not a "place within public view"

Furthermore, the specific abusive words were not clearly detailed in the FIR to establish an intentional insult likely to provoke a breach of peace

The court concluded that when purely administrative or civil disputes are given the "colour of criminality" for vengeance, the proceedings must be quashed to prevent a miscarriage of justice

The High Court allowed the petitions and quashed Crime No. 39/2025 pending before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, against all petitioners

It held that continuing the prosecution would amount to a miscarriage of justice as the basic ingredients of the SC/ST Act and BNS were not satisfied