The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that in order to constitue an offence under SC/ ST Act, hurling of abuses must be either in a public place or a place of public view.
The single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna in this view quashed proceedings against an accused initiated under provisions Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) SC/ ST Act noting that the alleged incident took place in the basement of a building.
"If the complaint, summary of charge sheet and the statement of witnesses, CW-2 in particular, are read in tandem, it would unmistakably reveal that hurling of abuses has happened at the basement where CWs-1 to 6 were working and in the basement, it is not indicated, any other person was even present."
The Court opined that two factors have emerged, one being, the basement of the building was not a place of public view and two, only persons who claim to be present. Therefore, hurling of abuses is clearly not in a place of public view or a public place for the aforesaid provisions of the Act to be get attracted in the case at hand, it held.
Referrence was made to HITESH VERMA vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND, 2020 Latest Caselaw 597 SC in which it was held that one of the key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in “any place within public view”.
The Apepx Court in the aforesaid judgement reflected on “place in public view” and observed that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view.
The Court noted that the Top Court has also considered the squabble between the parties which could have led to registration of the crime and to this mentioned the fact that the complainant is the employee of the person against whom an order of injunction is operating in a suit filed by the petitioner.
It inferred that from the facts of it, it appears that the defendent in the suit wanted to shoot the shoulder of his employee for the act of the petitioner having registered a suit against him and therefore, the registration of crime itself suffers from want of bona fides.
As far as the IPC offences under Sections 504, 506 and 323 were concerned, the Court remarked that for an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC, there should be hurt caused in the squabble.
It noted that in the present matter, only scratch marks are there and not bleeding.
"Therefore, simple scratch marks cannot become offence under Section 323 of the IPC. Insofar as Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC are concerned, they are clearly an offshoot of the allegations made under the Act. Therefore, none of the offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) or Section 3(2)(va) can be driven home in the case at hand as they are all shrouded with the act of 8th defendant seeking to wreck vengeance against the petitioner for having registered the suit. Therefore, none of the offences alleged are sustainable in the peculiar facts of the case at hand."
CASE TITLE: SRI RITHESH PAIS vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
CASE DETAILS: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3597 OF 2022
CORAM: Justice M Nagaprasanna
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
