Alleged Act Of 'Intentional Insult' Under SC/ST Act Not Offence Unless Committed In Public View: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has recently reiterated that an alleged act of intentional insult or intimidation causing humiliation would constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) only if it is committed in public view. A bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed thus while quashing...
The Allahabad High Court has recently reiterated that an alleged act of intentional insult or intimidation causing humiliation would constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) only if it is committed in public view.
A bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed thus while quashing Criminal proceedings against the 3 persons (applicants) in respect of offence under sections 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act.
Essentially, an FIR against the applicants was lodged in November 2017 under sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act with the allegations that the nominated accused persons (7 in number including the applicants) entered into the house of the informant and uttered caste-based remark and also assaulted the informant and his family members.
The applicants moved the Court with their Section 482 CrPC application regarding the offence under 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.
It was argued that the offence was committed in the informant's house, which is not a public place and was not in public view, and hence, no offence would be made out under Section 3 (1) (r) of the SC/ST Act.
For context, this provision under the SC/ST Act makes it an offence to intentionally insult or intimidate with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.
On the other hand, the AGA opposed the applicants' Section 482 CrPC plea. However, he could not dispute that the incident allegedly occurred in the informant's house.
At the outset, the Court noted that the site plan filed by the counsel for the applicants would indicate that the place of the incident is the informant's house, which is not a public place or public view.
The Court further observed that a perusal of the informant's statement under section 161 CrPC and the FIR demonstrated that no public member was in the house where the alleged incident is said to have occurred.
Against this backdrop, the court noted that the offence should have been committed in public view, perusing the mandate of section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.
“Once the offence has not taken place in public view the provisions of section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act would not be attracted and as such the same cannot be proceeded with,” the Court remarked as it quashed the proceedings in respect of Section 3 (1) (r) SC/ST Act.
Appearances
Counsel for Applicant: Manoj Kumar Singh, Virendra Pratap Pal
Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., Nanhe Lal Tripathi, Rakesh Singh Yadava
Case title - Pintu Singh @ Rana Pratap Singh And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 335
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 335