The Karnataka High Court has held that an advocate's office would constitute a “place within public view” under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, if members of the public or clients are present.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna was hearing a petition filed by a woman and her mother seeking to quash criminal proceedings against them for the offences under Sections 3(1)( r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act and Section 352 read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, initiated by an advocate.

The advocate was earlier entrusted with the petitioner's matrimonial case. The complainant alleged that the petitioners hurled caste-based abuses in her office in the presence of other clients.

For context, Sections 3(1)( r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act punishes derogatory statements made by taking the name of the caste of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in a public place or a place of public view.

Distinguishing between “public place” and “place within public view”, the High Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court ruling in Swaran Singh vs State (2008), wherein it was held, “We must, therefore, not confuse the expression 'place within public view' with the expression 'public place'".

A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.”

The High Court observed, “The complaint and the charge sheet would clearly indicate that the petitioners taking the name of the caste have hurled abuses against the complainant in the office of the complainant, in the presence of several clients. Albeit an office would not mean necessary ingredients of it being a place of public view, while it is not a public place, clients witnessing such hurling of abuses would require evidence to demonstrate whether the petitioners had with an intention abused the complainant taking the name of the caste of the complainant. The petitioners do not stop at that. The petitioners are alleged to have made such defamatory review in google business profile damaging the complainant's professional reputation again allegedly taking the name of the caste. These instances prima facie form the ingredients of the offences under the Act.”

The High Court also refused to quash the charge under Section 352 of the BNS, noting that the hurling of abuses inherently involves criminal intimidation.

It added that it was now on petitioners to come out clean in trial with regard to the said offences. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.