Gujarat HC Quashes Nurse’s Caste-Abuse FIR Against Hospital Doctor, Finding Only Accused Co-Workers Were Present at Office Meeting

The complainant, a nurse at Shubham Hospital, alleged that after a dispute concerning ₹5,000 deposited by a patient, the applicant accused her and other staff of theft and, on 2, 3 and 4 August 2018, made caste-related insults while calling them to her office.

The complainant lodged an FIR at Danilimda Police Station for offences under Section 394 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“Atrocities Act”).

The applicant sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, contending that the FIR disclosed no offence under the Atrocities Act and was lodged with mala fide intent.

The complainant and State opposed quashing, arguing that the hospital was a place within public view and that the allegations prima facie attracted the Act.

Section 3(1)(r) of the Atrocities Act requires an intentional insult or intimidation, with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, in a place within public view; the complainant’s caste or the accused’s knowledge of it, without the requisite intent, is insufficient (*Keshaw Mahto @ Keshaw Kumar Mahto v. State of Bihar*, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 799).

Under *Swaran Singh v. State*, (2008) 8 SCC 435, an incident inside a building may be within public view if members of the public are present; mere relatives or friends do not suffice.

The Court also applied the quashing principles in *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal*, AIR 1992 SC 604.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court found that the FIR placed the alleged remarks in the applicant’s office but did not allege that members of the public were present.

The persons said to have been called into the office were the complainant and other staff implicated in the alleged theft; on the Court’s assessment, their presence did not establish a place within public view as required by Section 3(1)(r).

The Court further considered that the ₹5,000 had allegedly been handed to the applicant’s husband on 1 August 2018, before the dates on which the staff were said to have been called to the office, and treated this circumstance, together with the applicant’s prior police application, as undermining the FIR’s credibility and suggesting vengeance.

It concluded that the case fell within the principles permitting quashing under *Bhajan Lal*.

The Rule was made absolute to that extent.