No SC/ST Act Offence If Alleged Casteist Abuse Occurred Inside Private House : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 11) quashed a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against an individual, who was accused of hurling caste-based abuses upon the complainant belonging to the Scheduled Caste category inside the four walls of a house.

Since the FIR did not disclose that the alleged incident of abuse and intimidation by appellant No.1 and the other appellants occurred in a place exposed to public gaze, the Court held that the essential ingredient of the offence under the SC/ST Act, namely that it must take place “in any place within public view,” was conspicuously absent, rendering the proceedings against the appellants unsustainable.

“…to make out the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and/or Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the occurrence of the incident and the act and conduct of hurling of caste-based abuses must take place at “a place within public view”. It must be a place within the public gaze. Even if it happens to be a private place, then in such eventuality a public-eye must have an access to be able to notice what happens there or what is taking place that will only make the “place within public view”.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria.

The case arose out of an FIR registered on allegations that the accused persons attempted to break open the complainant's house lock and used casteist slurs like chura, chamar, harijan, dirty drain etc. against him and his wife. The complainant and two of the accused were real brothers belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, while the wives of the accused belonged to non-SC/ST communities.

The trial court framed charges under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act against one of the accused, along with charges under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC against all the accused. The Delhi High Court later refused to interfere with the order framing charges.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the FIR itself failed to disclose the essential ingredient that the alleged incident occurred “within public view,” as required under the SC/ST Act.

Accepting the contention, the judgment authored by Justice Anjaria closely examined the FIR and found that the alleged incident had taken place inside the complainant's residential premises, and not in a location exposed to public gaze or accessible to the public.

“Once that is so, to suggest that the house place was not exposed to public eye or public gaze, a residential house in no way becomes “a place within public view”…For an offence to be made out under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, as is the question in the instant case, the requirement that the occurrence has to be “in a place within public view” is not satisfied, is missing and absent.”, the court said.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed.

Headnote

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) — Ingredient of "in any place within public view" — Essentiality of public gaze — Sine qua non for constituting offences under the Act - To make out an offence under Section 3(1)(r) and/or Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the occurrence of the incident and the act of hurling caste-based abuses must take place at "a place within public view" or within the public gaze - Even if the incident happens at a private place, the public must have access to notice what is happening to satisfy this requirement - A residential house cannot be considered "a place within public view" when the incident occurs within its four walls and no independent member of the public is present to witness it. [Paras 5 – 9]

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 506 read with Section 34 — Criminal Intimidation — Sine qua non of "intent to cause alarm" — Absence of common intention - The pivotal aspect to establish an offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC is the "intent to cause alarm" to the complainant. Where allegations do not demonstrate that the threats exerted by the accused were intended to cause such alarm, and there is no evidence of a common intention to commit a criminal act under Section 34 IPC, prosecuting the accused would amount to an abuse of the process of law. [Para 10]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR and Chargesheet — Absence of necessary ingredients - An FIR is liable to be quashed if its bare reading does not disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offences - When the basic constituents of the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act (i.e., occurrence in a place within public view) and Section 506 IPC (i.e., intent to cause alarm) are conspicuously missing from the contents of the FIR and the chargesheet, the framing of charges is unsustainable in the eyes of law. [Relied on Swaran Singh and Others vs. State through Standing Counsel and Another (2008) 8 SCC 435; Karuppudayar vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy and Others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 215; State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Amar Nath Jha vs. Nand Kishore Singh and Others (2018) 9 SCC 137; Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2023) 17 SCC 615; Paras 9 - 11]

Cause Title: GUNJAN @ GIRIJA KUMARI AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 484

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, AOR Ms. Urvashi Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Veerma, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Reeya, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Kamal Rattan Digpaul, Adv. Ms. Harshita Choubey, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. Udit Dediya, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Banju, AOR