Karuppudayar vs State 2025 INSC 132 - SC-ST Act - Public View - S 482 CrPC

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) -For constituting an offence, it has to be established that the accused intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. Similarly, for constituting an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, it will be necessary that the accused abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view- To be a place ‘within public view’, the place should be open where the members of the public can witness or hear the utterance made by the accused to the victim. 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. [Referred to Swaran Singh v. State (2008) 8 SCC 435 and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710 ] (Para 9-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - The power under Section 482 of the CrPC is required to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases- The court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. However, the court would be justified in exercising its discretion if the case falls under any of the clauses carved out by this Court in Paragraph 102 in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. (para 17)

Summary: SC quashed criminal proceedings under SC-ST Act - In this case that when the complainant was in his office the accused came there; enquired with the complainant; not being satisfied, started abusing him in the name of his caste; and insulted him. Thereafter, three colleagues of the complainant came there, pacified the accused and took him away. It is thus clear that even as per the FIR, the incident has taken place within the four corners of the chambers of the complainant. The other colleagues of the complainant arrived at the scene after the occurrence of the incident- that since the incident has not taken place at a place which can be termed to be a place within public view, the offence would not come under the provisions of either Section 3(1)(r) or Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act.