Recently, the Supreme Court examined whether allegations of caste-based abuse made during a family property dispute were sufficient to sustain criminal proceedings under the SC/ST Act. The Court closely analysed the requirement that such alleged insults or intimidation must take place “within public view” for the offence to be made out. While scrutinising the FIR and witness statements, the Court also revisited the principles governing criminal intimidation and the legality of continuing prosecution where basic ingredients of the alleged offences are missing.
Brief Facts :
The case arose from a dispute between family members regarding ancestral properties situated in Delhi. It stemmed from allegations that during an altercation over the property, caste-based remarks and threats were made against the complainant. An FIR was registered under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons, which were subsequently upheld by the High Court while dismissing the revision petition. According to the complaint, abusive caste-related words were allegedly used and threats were extended during the confrontation inside the residential premises. The prosecution also relied upon statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Contentions of the Appellant :
The counsel for the Appellants contended that the essential ingredients required to constitute offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were completely absent from the FIR and the charge-sheet. The counsel argued that the alleged incident had taken place inside a private residential house and not at “a place within public view,” which is a mandatory requirement under the statute. Reliance was placed upon Swaran Singh v. State through Standing Counsel, Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Karuppudayar v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police to submit that where the FIR itself does not disclose the statutory ingredients of an offence, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law. It was further argued that the allegations under Section 506 IPC were vague and failed to disclose any “intent to cause alarm,” which is the core ingredient of criminal intimidation. The Appellants also asserted that there was no material to establish any common intention under Section 34 IPC.
Contentions of the Respondent :
The counsel for the Respondents supported the orders passed by the Trial Court and the High Court, contending that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial or meticulously evaluate the evidence on record. It was submitted that the complaint specifically alleged caste-based abuses and threats, and that witness statements recorded during investigation corroborated the complainant’s version. The Respondents argued that the allegations prima facie disclosed commission of offences under the SC/ST Act as well as Section 506 IPC, thereby justifying the continuation of criminal proceedings.
Observation of the Court :
The Supreme Court observed that “the common essential for constituting the offence under both the Sections is that the insult or intimidation under sub-clause (r) or hurling of abuses under sub-clause (s) have taken place ‘in any place within public view’.” The Court reiterated that “It must be a place within the public gaze,” and clarified that “even 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.” Referring to earlier precedents, the Bench further noted that “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 Court ultimately held that “the requirement that the occurrence has to be ‘in a place within public view’ is not satisfied, is missing and absent,” making it “a sine qua non for making out the offence under the SC/ST Act.”
Examining the FIR, the Court observed that “these allegations about the alleged continuous conduct did not speak of any specific instance or happening on a particular day,” and therefore “general accusations lead nowhere when it comes to allegation about the commission of offence.” The Bench found that “nowhere it was stated that the said incident… took place where there was a public gaze.” It further noted that “the details mentioned in the FIR clearly indicated that the place of occurrence of the incident was inside the residential house,” and that “all material facts go to suggest that the alleged incident took place in a private place and within four walls of the house.” The Court concluded that “a residential house in no way becomes ‘a place within public view’.”
On the offence of criminal intimidation, the Supreme Court stated that “the ‘intent to cause alarm’ is a pivotal aspect and consideration to judge whether the offence of criminal intimidation is made out or not.” After analysing the allegations, the Bench observed that “it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the appellants-accused exerted threat with an intent to cause ‘alarm’,” and accepted the submission that “the element of ‘alarm’ to the complainant was absent.” The Court also held that “nothing is suggested either from the facts or attendant circumstances that the appellants-accused had any common intention to do a criminal act.” It ultimately observed that “it would be an abuse of the process of law and would amount to harassment to the appellants to subject them to the criminal proceedings.”
Decision of the Court :
The Court held that the charges framed against the accused persons were unsustainable as the FIR failed to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. The Court accordingly set aside the orders passed by the High Court and the Trial Court. Consequently, the FIR, charge-sheet and all consequential criminal proceedings against the accused persons stood quashed.
Case Title: Gunjan @ Girija Kumari and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2446 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9198 of 2025)
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. V. Anjaria
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, learned ASG assisted by Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria and others
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
