The Supreme Court of India has set aside a Delhi High Court order and quashed charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against four individuals in a family dispute. A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria ruled that for an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act to be made out, the alleged caste-based abuse must occur in a “place within public view,” which was not the case here.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a dispute over properties belonging to the late father of the parties, Shri Nand Kishore. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and the complainant (Respondent No. 2) are real brothers belonging to a Scheduled Caste. Appellant Nos. 1 and 4 are the wives of the second and third appellants, respectively, and belong to castes other than Scheduled Castes or Tribes.
The complainant filed FIR No. 42 of 2021 alleging that on January 28, 2021, the appellants misbehaved with him while trying to break open the lock of his house. It was alleged that Appellant No. 1 used derogatory caste-based slurs such as “chura,” “chamar,” and “harijan” against him and his wife in the presence of his friends. The trial court framed charges against Appellant No. 1 under the SC/ST Act and against all appellants under Section 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellants’ revision petition on August 22, 2024, leading to the present appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellants argued that the essential requirement of the offences being committed at a “place within public view” was not met, as the incident allegedly occurred within a residential house. They further contended that the averments did not fulfill the ingredients of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the IPC.
Conversely, the respondents supported the High Court’s decision, asserting that at the stage of framing charges, the court is not required to hold a mini-trial and that the witness statements corroborated the allegations of caste-based insults and death threats.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court meticulously examined the legal requirement of the phrase “in any place within public view” found in Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
Referring to its previous rulings in Swaran Singh vs. State (2008), Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand (2020), and Karuppudayar vs. State (2025), the Court elucidated:
“It could thus be seen that, to be a ‘place within public view’, the place should be open where the members of the public can witness or hear the utterance made by the accused to the victim. If the alleged offence takes place within the four corners of the wall where members of the public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place within public view.”
The Bench observed that the FIR and chargesheet identified the place of occurrence as a residential house in Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. The Court noted that the presence of the complainant’s friends did not transform a private residence into a place within public view.
“A residential house in no way becomes ‘a place within public view’… 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.”
Regarding the IPC charges, the Court found that the essential “intent to cause alarm” for criminal intimidation under Section 503 was absent. Furthermore, there was no evidence of “common intention” among the appellants under Section 34.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the charges were wrongly framed as the basic constituents of the alleged offences were missing from the FIR.
“It is trite principle that the FIR becomes liable in law to be quashed when it, in its bare reading, does not disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence alleged therein.”
The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment and the trial court’s orders. FIR No. 42 of 2021 and the subsequent chargesheet were quashed.
Case Details Block:
- Case Title: Gunjan @ Girija Kumari and Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2446 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 9198 of 2025)
- Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria
- Date: May 11, 2026
