Uttering Caste Slurs At Factory Dispatch Door Accessed By Workers Falls Under 'Public View' Under SC/ST Act: Karnataka High Court

Differentiating between 'public place' and 'public view', Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar referred to the Supreme Court's judgments in Karuppudayar v. State (2022) and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand(2020):

“…Public view does not necessarily mean public view by any passerby public – if employees are at that place, such employees are also to be considered as members of public. The dispatch section and its door are accessible to employees working in the factory and are not isolated places”, the court noted that the incident occurred within 'public view' even if it occurred inside the factory premises.

The Court noted that the door of the dispatch section of the factory is 'easily accessible and amenable for employees for ingress and egress', and therefore the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 regarding 'public view' were prima facie attracted.

“…the place is at the door of the dispatch section of the factory. The dispatch section is not a remote place in the factory. The dispatch section and its door are accessible to employees working in the factory and are not isolated places…”, the single judge bench further clarified.

The petitioners were charged for offences under under Sections 504 and 584 of IPC, and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC and ST Act. Before the High Court, they prayed for the quashing of FIR against them.

The complainant, who had been working at ' Swims Technology Private Ltd' for the last 20 years, alleges that the accused persons exerted pressure on him to make a complaint against a fellow employee. When the complainant refused, the accused verbally abused him with caste references, and threatened to terminate him from employment.

The petitioners tried to colour the alleged offences in light of an existing trade union dispute involving the management and the workmen.

“…Just because a notice for strike is issued and a Complaint[police complaint] is lodged, linking these two events is nothing but appears to be coincidence. Whether trade union has instigated the complainant to lodge complaint against the petitioners is a question of disputed fact is triable issue in the trial, but cannot be decided at this stage…Raising an industrial dispute is different; it is done collectively by all the employees in the factory…”, it was further held that the allegations are not prima facie a civil dispute given the colour of criminal proceedings.

The petitioners had cited the 6 months delay in filing the complaint from the date of alleged incident. Refusing to accept such a contention, the court noted in the order as below:

“…If the complainant had mala fide intention to lodge the complaint, the date of occurrence of the incident could have been mentioned just one or two days prior to 29.10.2024 so as to cover the delay, but the very fact that the date of occurrence is mentioned in the complaint as 06.04.2024 and lodging of complaint on 29.10.2024 is to be considered in the surrounding circumstances”, the court explained.

The court also opined that making a complaint against the owner of the factory a workman is employed at would inevitably come with the risk of termination. This could be one of the reasons why the complainant initially hesitated to approach the police, the court inferred.

The court, hence, refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the factory owners and dismissed their petition.

Adv. Shridhar Prabhu appeared for the for Petitioners; Abhishek Malipatil, HCGP represented the State whereas Adv Rajneet M. Pawar appeared for Respondent No.2/Complainant.

Case Title: Shyam Mehta S/o Bimal Mehta & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No.: Crl Petition No.100213 of 2025