Incidental filming by a stranger, unsupported by other material, does not justify SC/ST Act prosecution.

The petitioner, a camera operator for a news channel, visited a COVID-19 vaccination programme at a government school to cover the event.

An altercation allegedly followed when respondent No. 2 questioned the filming.

The complaint alleged that the petitioner abused the complainant by referring to her caste in public and physically assaulted her.

Police registered Crime No. 1/2022 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Following the filing of a charge sheet and the Special Court taking cognizance, the petitioner sought to quash the proceedings; respondent No. 2 was served but did not appear.

Whether the allegations and material on record justified continuing the proceedings against the petitioner for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

Whether, in the circumstances of the case, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 341, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Court applied its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings where, on the material before it, their continuation would amount to an abuse of process.

No precedent was cited or discussed in the order.

The Court noted that the petitioner was at the vaccination site to film the programme and found no premeditation in his presence or filming.

It reasoned that filming the alleged woman while she received vaccination, if incidental to covering the event, did not by itself amount to obscene image-capture.

It also considered the petitioner’s asserted status as a stranger to the complainant and found invocation of the SC/ST Act unwarranted.

As there was no material apart from the complaint’s averments to proceed against the petitioner, the Court concluded that continuing the case would constitute an abuse of process.

It quashed the pending proceedings in Spl. C.C. No. 773/2022, arising from Crime No. 1/2022, against the petitioner for the alleged IPC and SC/ST Act offences.