Mere Ill-Treatment Of SC Person Not Offence; Caste-Based Intent Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Against DU Professor

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that mere ill-treatment of a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste is not sufficient to attract the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, unless there is a clear and specific intent to humiliate the victim on the basis of caste.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “For an offence to be made out under Section 3 of SC/ST Act, it is essential that the alleged act must have been committed with the intent to humiliate the victim, specifically on account of her caste identity. It is not sufficient that the Complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste and that she was subjected to ill-treatment or a physical altercation.”

The bench made the observation while quashing an FIR registered under Sections 323 (hurt) and 504 (intentional insult) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, against an Associate Professor at Lakshmibai College, Delhi University.

The case arose out of an altercation between two associate professors during a departmental meeting in August 2021. The dispute reportedly began over the signing of minutes of a meeting, following which the complainant alleged that she was slapped and humiliated in front of colleagues.

While the initial complaints filed on the day of the incident referred only to the physical altercation, allegations of caste-based remarks were introduced subsequently in later complaints.

The Court noted that to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act, it must be shown that the accused intentionally insulted or intimidated the victim with the specific intent to humiliate them on account of their caste, and that such act occurred in public view.

“The nexus between the alleged act and the caste identity of the victim, must be clearly and unequivocally established from the very face of the Complaint,” it said.

Examining the record, the Court found that the caste-related allegations lacked specificity, with no clear attribution of casteist remarks in most statements.

The Court also noted that only one witness had attributed specific caste-based remarks to the accused, which remained uncorroborated by other witnesses.

Thus holding that the essential ingredients of the offence under the SC/ST Act were not made out, the Court quashed the charges.

So far as Sections 323 and 504 IPC are concerned, the Court observed that these are non-cognizable, and no prior permission of the Magistrate had been obtained as required under Section 155(2) CrPC.

As such, the Court quashed the FIR.

Appearance: Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Ms. Urvashi Sharma and Mr. Vinayak Gautam Advocates for Petitioner; Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for State with ACP Garima Tiwari, Insp. Yashwant and SI Sonal Raj, P.S.: Bharat Nagar. Ms. Pooja Roy, Advocate for R-2.

Case title: Ranjit Kaur v. State

Case no.: W.P.(CRL) 1622/2021

Click here to read order