Recently, the Telangana High Court held that allegations of caste-based abuse made within the confines of a domestic setting do not attract offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court was dealing with a plea seeking to quash proceedings arising out of a matrimonial discord, and observed that for the provisions of the Act to apply, the alleged insult or humiliation must occur “in public view”.
Brief Facts:
The case stemmed from a complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant against his estranged wife, the petitioner. Both were former classmates who later married in 2014 in an inter-caste marriage, the complainant belonging to a Scheduled Caste and the petitioner to the Kapu community.
The complainant alleged that his in-laws humiliated him on account of his caste, and the petitioner herself frequently insulted him, demanded divorce, and threatened to implicate him in false cases. Their relationship broke down, leading to a decree of divorce in 2019. However, in 2019, a complaint was registered against the petitioner under Section 504 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner’s counsel relied upon the Supreme Court ruling in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, to contend that the allegations essentially arose from matrimonial discord and did not amount to caste-based atrocities. It was argued that the alleged acts occurred in a private residence, not in public view, and therefore the provisions of the SC/ST Act were not attracted. It was further submitted that the complaint was belated and lacked credibility since the parties had already obtained a divorce decree prior to its filing.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, counsel for the complainant argued that the investigation had been completed and that the issue of whether the alleged abuse occurred in public or private could only be tested during trial. He placed reliance on Sudhakar v. State, stressing that the truth of the allegations required examination of witnesses. The Assistant Public Prosecutor also submitted that several witnesses were yet to be examined and urged that the trial be allowed to proceed to its logical conclusion.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court carefully examined the rival submissions and the record. Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Hitesh Verma, the Bench reiterated, “For the offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act to be attracted, the insult or intimidation must occur in public view. The allegations in the present case, even if accepted in entirety, do not indicate that the incident occurred in a public place or was witnessed by independent persons”.
The Court further noted that the complaint arose out of marital discord and personal disputes, observing, “The nature of the allegations does not clearly demonstrate any specific instance wherein the petitioners are shown to have abused or humiliated the de-facto complainant in the name of his caste, along with the place, time, and manner of such occurrence”.
Accordingly, the Bench held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an “abuse of process of law”.
The decision of the Court:
Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the proceedings, pending before the Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act, Ranga Reddy District. The Court categorically held that the allegations did not satisfy the essential ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act since the alleged acts were not committed in public view.
Case No.: Criminal Petition No.3799 of 2021
Coram: Justice E.V. Venugopal
Picture Source :
