SC/ST Act | Desirable To Outline Caste Related Utterances In FIR Or Chargesheet Before Subjecting Accused To Trial: Supreme Court

“Since section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars invocation of the court’s jurisdiction under section 438, Cr.PC and having regard to the overriding effect of the SC/ST Act over other laws, it is desirable that before an accused is subjected to a trial for alleged commission of offence under section 3(1)(x), the utterances made by him in any place within public view are outlined, if not in the F.I.R. (which is not required to be an encyclopaedia of all facts and events), but at least in the charge-sheet (which is prepared based either on statements of witnesses recorded in course of investigation or otherwise) so as to enable the court to ascertain whether the charge sheet makes out a case of an offence under the SC/ST Act having been committed for forming a proper opinion in the conspectus of the situation before it, prior to taking cognisance of the offence.”

A Bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta expressed the aforementioned view while deciding a Special Leave Petition challenging the order of the Allahabad High Court whereby it had dismissed a application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against the accused (appellant), who was alleged to have hurled caste abuses towards the complainant and his family members.

Factual Background

The prosecution’s case is that while indulging in an altercation with the compliant, the appellant had hurled caste abuses towards the complainant and his family members. He had also physically assaulted the complainant. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged against the appellant under Section 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and 504 IPC (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (punishment for offences atrocities). Investigation was conducted in a day and consequently, chargesheet was filed.

The appellant claimed the he also intended to file an FIR with respect to the same incident, as he was badly beaten up by the complainant and his son. But his FIR was not registered. The appellant was challaned and detained under Section 151 (arrest to prevent the commission of cognizable offence), 107 (security for keeping the peace in other cases) and 116 (inquiry as to truth of information) CrPC. Once he was released on bail, the appellant moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC (police officer’s power to investigate cognizable offence). Pursuant to the order of the Magistrate an FIR was logged under Sections 323, 325 (punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 392 (punishment for robbery), 452 (house trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), 504, 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) IPC against the compliant. The appellant had also instituted a suit seeking permanent injunction against the complainant for his permanent encroached on the appellant’s land.

The appellant approached the Allahabad High Court assailing the chargesheet and seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against him. The High Court had granted interim relief to the appellant directing the investigating agency to not take any coercive action pending the consideration of the application. However, after hearing the matter on merits, the High Court dismissed the appellant’s application under Section 482 CrPC (saving of inherent power of High Court).

Analysis by the Supreme Court

The Court noted that the FIR registered at the instance of the complainant does not disclose the place of occurrence, the members of public present when the caste related abuses were hurled. However, the appellant’s FIR indicates that the incident took place at the house of the appellant. The Court culled out the issues as under -

1. whether it was at a place within public view that the appellant hurled caste related abuses at the complainant with an intent to insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate him - The Court noted that the prosecution had relied on three witnesses (complainant, his wife and their son). It concluded that at the time the utterance was made there were no member of the public present. It observed that since the utterance made by the appellant were not in any place within public view the basic ingredient for invoking Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is not made out. It further noted - “The legislative intent seems to be clear that every insult or intimidation for humiliation to a person would not amount to an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act unless, of course, such insult or intimidation is targeted at the victim because of he being a member of a particular Scheduled Caste or Tribe.”

In order to attract Section 3(1)(x) the utterances ought to be laced with casteist remarks.

1. whether the criminal proceedings against the appellant should be allowed to be taken further in view of the appellant facing accusation of offences punishable under sections 323 and 504, IPC - Section 323 IPC prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. The Court noted that though the complainant had alleged that he had sustained several injuries, the chargesheet does not refer to any eye-witness other than his wife and son, or any medical report. There is no mention of the nature of hurt in either the FIR or the chargesheet. On the other hand the appellant had injuries suffered by him which were treated immediately after the incident. With respect to Section 504 IPC the Court held that in the circumstances of the case, the same could not have been invoked.

In regard to the nature of investigation the Court noted -

“Completion of investigation within a day in a given case could be appreciated but in the present case it has resulted in more disservice than service to the cause of justice. The situation becomes all the more glaring when in course of this proceeding the parties including the first respondent (Investigating Agency) are unable to apprise us the outcome of the second F.I.R.”

While allowing the petition, the Supreme Court observed -

“We record that the High Court misdirected itself in failing to appreciate the challenge to the criminal proceedings including the charge-sheet in the proper perspective and occasioned a grave failure of justice in rejecting such challenge.”

Case details

Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Anr.| 2023 LiveLaw SC 469  | SLP(Crl) No. 1249/2023| 19th May, 2023| Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta