Gujarat HC Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Over Alleged Caste Insults, Saying FIR Specified No Slur Or Public-View Incident; BNSS Case Continues

The petitioners sought to quash an FIR registered at Sayajigunj Police Station for offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as well as other offences.

At the hearing, they did not press the petition insofar as it concerned the latter offences, limiting the application to the Atrocities Act.

The FIR alleged that the petitioners used derogatory words concerning the complainant’s caste and threatened the complainant with death.

The High Court found that the FIR did not identify the words allegedly used, state that the accused and complainant belonged to the relevant caste categories, or allege that the incident occurred within public view.

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

Relying on Swaran Singh v. State and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, as discussed in Karuppudayar v. State, the Court stated that a place may be private yet within public view, but the alleged conduct must be capable of being witnessed or heard by members of the public.

The Court also cited George Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh on the need for allegations disclosing the basic ingredients of the offence.

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which permits quashing where allegations, even accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence.

The Court considered the FIR on its face and concluded that its general allegation of derogatory caste-related words did not disclose the words used or otherwise show that the statutory elements of Sections 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s) were met.

It also found no allegation establishing the relevant caste status or that the alleged insult occurred within public view, including the presence of a third party.

Applying the Bhajan Lal principle, the Court held that continuing the Atrocities Act proceedings on those allegations would amount to an abuse of process.

Proceedings for the other offences were expressly left undisturbed and were to continue without being influenced by the Court’s observations.

The Court also acceded to the APP’s request for recovery of any compensation paid to the complainant.