In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that an allegation of caste-based abuse, if made within a private space without public visibility, does not constitute an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The ruling came in the case of Karuppudayar v. State, wherein the court quashed criminal proceedings against the appellant, observing that the alleged incident had occurred within the confines of an office, away from public view.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an incident on 2 September 2021, when the appellant, Karuppudayar, approached respondent no. 3, Mr. Ravikumar, a Revenue Inspector, at the Revenue Divisional Office in Lalgudi, Tiruchirappalli, regarding a petition concerning his father’s land records. A dispute ensued, during which Karuppudayar was accused of abusing Ravikumar by using his caste name.
Following a complaint by Ravikumar, the police registered an FIR under Sections 294(b) and 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which pertain to intentionally insulting or intimidating a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe in a place within public view. The charge sheet was subsequently filed, and the case was committed to trial before the I-Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli, as Special S.C. No. 7 of 2022.
Seeking relief, Karuppudayar approached the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), requesting the quashing of proceedings on the ground that the alleged offence did not occur in public view. However, the High Court dismissed his plea, holding that no prejudice would be caused to him by facing trial. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Ruling and Key Legal Issues
A two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the judgment, with Smt. Vanshaja Shukla representing the appellant and Shri Sabarish Subramanian appearing for the respondents. The court analysed the interpretation of “public view” under the SC/ST Act and ruled in favour of the appellant.
Citing previous landmark cases, including Swaran Singh v. State (2008) and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), the bench reiterated that for an offence to be made out under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), the act must be committed in a location accessible to the public. The judgment noted:
“To be a place ‘within public view’, the location must be such that members of the public can witness or hear the utterance. If the incident occurs within the confines of a private office where the public is not present, it does not satisfy the requirement of public view.”
The court found that the alleged incident took place inside the office of the Revenue Inspector, where only the complainant and the accused were present at the time of the alleged abuse. Other officials arrived only after the event. Therefore, the essential ingredient of “public view” was not satisfied.
Referring to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the court underscored that where allegations in the FIR do not prima facie constitute an offence, the High Court must exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings.
Court’s Final Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court’s judgment and quashed the criminal proceedings against Karuppudayar. The key directives were as follows:
1. The High Court’s order dated 28 February 2024 in Criminal Original Petition (MD) No. 6676 of 2022 and Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (MD) No. 4621 of 2022 was quashed.
2. The charge sheet in Special S.C. No. 7 of 2022, pending before the I-Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli, was set aside.
3. All proceedings related to the case were annulled.
