SC/ST prosecution cannot proceed without material showing caste-based insult in public view.

The petitioners included the de facto complainant’s husband and parents-in-law. In a complaint dated 21 January 2020, the complainant alleged matrimonial cruelty and caste-based humiliation; the complaint was lodged after she had been at her parental home for 66 days.

The Court considered proceedings arising from two Garfa Police Station cases: the first alleging offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(t) of the SC/ST Act; the second alleging offences under Sections 506/509/34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of that Act.

Whether the FIR, charge-sheet and case-diary material disclosed a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act, including the required caste-related element and, where applicable, an insult or intimidation in a place within public view.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the court warranting quashing.

Section 498A IPC criminalises specified forms of cruelty by a husband or his relative, including wilful conduct likely to cause grave injury or danger to a woman’s health, and harassment intended to coerce an unlawful property demand.

For offences under the SC/ST Act considered by the Court, a caste-related insult or intimidation must satisfy the applicable statutory elements; an allegation of insult to a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not, by itself, sufficient. Where the provision requires the act to occur in a place within public view, that element must also be made out.

Relying on Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court recognised that proceedings under the SC/ST Act may be quashed where the alleged offence is not shown to be caste-motivated or continuation would abuse the legal process.

The Court also relied on Dara Lakshmi Narayana for the caution that vague, omnibus matrimonial allegations, particularly against family members without specific allegations of involvement, should not alone sustain prosecution.

The Court found no material in the case diary showing that the complainant was abused in public, and no sufficient particulars in the FIR or charge-sheet to establish the alleged caste-related offences.

Although the complaint referred to the complainant’s caste and alleged humiliation, the Court considered those assertions insufficient, on the record before it, to establish the necessary statutory ingredients.

Applying the principles against prosecution based on generalised allegations and against continuation of proceedings unsupported by a prima facie case, the Court concluded that the impugned proceedings should not continue.

Connected applications were disposed of, any interim order was vacated, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the trial court.