Gujarat High Court
Pankaj Maheshbhai Khatri vs State Of Gujarat on 17 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/38/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 38 of 2020
==========================================================
PANKAJ MAHESHBHAI KHATRI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
AKASH A SINGH(8713) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MUKESH KUMAR SUDARSHAN(10268) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS HETU M SUDARSHAN(10051) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NARENDRA K AMIN(9506) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 17/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the First Information
Report No.3386 of 2019, registered at Dariyapur Police Station, for
offences alleged under Sections 3(1)(R)(S) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as the "SC/ST Act").
SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER:-
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has ardently
submitted that the allegations delineated in the FIR, even if taken at
their face value, do not constitute the offences punishable under
Sections 3(1)(R)(S) of the SC/ST Act. The primary contention is that
the alleged incident did not occur "within public view," which is an
essential ingredient for both offences.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/38/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
2.1. The counsel asserts that the alleged altercation and use of
caste-based slurs transpired within the four walls where no member
of the public was present to witness the event. It is argued that the
term "within public view" necessitates that the derogatory remarks
are made in a place accessible to the public, where independent
persons can see and hear the incident.
2.2. Furthermore, learned counsel submits that the dispute
between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 is of a personal
nature, and the provisions of the SC/ST Act have been invoked to
settle personal scores. It is contended that the absence of the
"public view" element fundamentally strikes at the root of the
allegations, rendering the continuation of criminal proceedings an
abuse of the process of law.
SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 (ORIGINAL
COMPLAINANT):-
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has
vehemently opposed the petition, submitting that the FIR clearly
discloses the commission of an cognizable offence. It is argued that
the petitioner, who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insulted and intimidated the
complainant with the intent to humiliate him.
3.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that a detailed
investigation is required to ascertain the facts and that the High
Court should not embark on an inquiry into the reliability or
genuineness of the allegations at this preliminary stage. Thus, it is
prayed to dismiss the present petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/38/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED APP FOR THE RESPONDENT-
STATE:-
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) appearing for
the State has adopted the submissions of the respondent No. 2. The
APP has argued that a prima facie case is made out from the
contents of the FIR. It is the State's position that the investigation
has been conducted diligently, leading to the filing of a charge
sheet, and therefore, the petition to quash the proceedings should
be dismissed. The learned APP submits that the question of whether
the offence occurred "within public view" is a matter of evidence
that can only be adjudicated during a full-fledged trial.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:-
5. This Court has meticulously considered the submissions of all
parties and perused the material on record, including the FIR and
relevant legal precedents.
5.1. The seminal issue for consideration is whether the allegations
in the FIR prima facie constitute an offence under Sections 3(1)(R)
(S) of the SC/ST Act. The essential ingredients for an offence under
Section 3(1)(r) are: (i) intentional insult or intimidation with the
intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe, (ii) by a person who is not a member of the SC/ST
communities, and (iii) the act must occur in a place "within public
view". Similarly, Section 3(1)(s) penalizes the act of abusing a
member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by caste name,
again, in any place "within public view".
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/38/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
5.2. The phrase "within public view" is of critical importance. The
Supreme Court has, in several landmark judgments, clarified its
meaning. It is now settled law that for an act to be considered
"within public view," it must have occurred in a place where
members of the public have access and can witness the incident.
There is a distinction between a "public place" and a place "within
public view". An offence can occur in a private place, yet still be
"within public view" if it is visible or audible to the public.
However, if an alleged offence takes place within the four corners
of a building, such as an office chamber, and is not witnessed by
any member of the public, the ingredient of "public view" is not
satisfied.
5.3. The Supreme Court has consistently held that where the
allegations in the FIR, taken at their face value, do not constitute an
offence, this Court is justified in exercising its inherent powers
under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceedings to prevent
an abuse of process. To allow the criminal proceedings to continue
against the petitioner in the absence of a key, statutorily mandated
ingredient of the offence would be a travesty of justice. The
purpose of the SC/ST Act is to protect members of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes from atrocities, not to be used as a tool for
settling private disputes.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER:-
6. In light of the foregoing analysis and the settled legal position,
this Court is of the considered view that a fundamental ingredient
for constituting an offence under Sections 3(1)(R)(S) of the SC/ST
Act, namely that the alleged act must be committed "within public
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/38/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
view," is conspicuously absent in the present case. The allegations,
even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie make out an
offence under the said sections.
7. Accordingly, the petition is ALLOWED. The FIR No. 3386 of
2019, registered at Dariyapur Police Station, for offences under
Section 3(1)(R)(S), and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom, are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MANISH MISHRA
