Abuse Hurled Over Telephone Cannot Satisfy 'Place Within Public View' Requirement Under SC/ST Act: P&H High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld a trial court's order discharging an accused of offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, holding that caste-related abuse allegedly hurled over a telephone call could not be said to have occurred in a "place within public view" as required to attract...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld a trial court's order discharging an accused of offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, holding that caste-related abuse allegedly hurled over a telephone call could not be said to have occurred in a "place within public view" as required to attract these provisions. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 245]
Justice Alok Jain, "Admittedly, in the present case, as per the FIR, the allegation is that the Respondent No. 2 used certain caste-related abusive words over the telephone while speaking with the son of the complainant. This clearly implies that the complainant herself was neither privy to the conversation nor did she personally hear the alleged caste-related abuses. At best, the information regarding the incident was conveyed to her by her son."
The petitioner, Jyoti Devi, had filed the underlying FIR alleging that respondent No. 2 used caste-related abusive and threatening language against her minor son during a telephone conversation.
The Special Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, vide order dated 08.05.2026, held that the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were not made out, and directed that the case file be sent to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, for further proceedings under the ordinary criminal law. The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court by way of revision.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), which criminalise intentionally insulting or intimidating, or abusing by caste name, a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe "in any place within public view" stood satisfied, since respondent No. 2 was allegedly seated at a public place while making the abusive remarks over the phone, rendering the conversation audible to several persons present there.
Reliance was placed on the statement of one Jeevansh, who had handed his phone to respondent No. 2 to enable the call, during which the alleged caste-based threats and abuses were directed at the complainant's minor son — a circumstance the petitioner argued should be treated as having occurred within public view.
The Court referred to Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act and reiterated that both provisions require the alleged offence to have occurred in a place within public view.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, 2020 (4) RCR (Criminal) 868, the Court noted that remarks made within the four walls of a house, without members of the public, as distinct from relatives or friends being present, do not satisfy this requirement.
It further noted the distinction drawn in Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435, between a "public place" and a "place within public view", the latter being satisfied, for instance, by a lawn visible from a public road, but not by remarks made inside a building absent outsiders.
The Court also relied on Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104, for the principle that an offence under the Act requires the insult or intimidation to be intentionally directed at the victim because of caste, and on the Supreme Court's more recent reaffirmation of the "public view" requirement in Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi v. State of Odisha, 2025 (1) SCC 662.
Examining the facts, the Court observed that the allegation was that the abusive remarks were made over a telephone call directed at the complainant's minor son, and that the complainant herself was neither a party to that conversation nor personally heard the alleged abuse, the information having reached her only second-hand through her son. On this basis, the Court held that the essential ingredient of the offence having occurred in a place within public view was not established.
Finding no infirmity in the trial court's order, which it held had correctly applied the governing Supreme Court precedents, the High Court dismissed the revision petition as devoid of merit.
Title: Jyoti Devi v. State of Haryana and another
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocate Counsel for the State: Ms. Swati Batra, Sr. DAG, Haryana