A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih explained, 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," the court said.

 

The court here allowed an appeal filed by Karuppudayar against the Madras High Court's Madurai bench decision of February 28, 24, to quash the proceedings initiated against him in terms of an FIR with regard to an incident of September 2, 2021.

 

Upon a perusal of the order of the High Court, the bench said, "We find that the High Court has not at all considered this aspect of the matter though it was strenuously argued on behalf of the petitioner before the High Court (appellant herein) that the allegations made in the FIR do not make out a case that the offence is committed in public view. The High Court did not even deal with the said contention, leave aside considering the same."

 

According to the prosecution, the appellant approached Ravikumar, Revenue Inspector, in order to inquire regarding the status of a petition filed for inclusion of his father’s name in the patta for the land situated in Natham UDR, Sembarai village.

A quarrel took place between the appellant and the inspector in which he allegedly abused the official by using his caste name in the Revenue Divisional Office, Lalgudi, Tiruchirappalli.

 

The official lodged an FIR at Trichy for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 353 of the IPC, read with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

 

The appellant approached the High Court against the initiation of criminal proceedings upon filing of the charge sheet. As the High Court refused any relief, he approached the apex court.

 

Advocate Vanshaja Shukla, appearing for the appellant, submitted that the High Court has grossly erred in rejecting the plea. She submits that even taking the allegations in the FIR at its face value, the ingredients to constitute an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act are not made out.

 

Sabarish Subramanian, counsel for the respondents submitted that no interference was warranted in the case as the High Court found no ground for quashing the proceedings after going through the charge sheet.

 

Going through the contents of the FIR, the court noted, it was alleged that the accused, after seeking information about the application filed by his father, asked the complainant as to what caste he belongs to. The complainant stated he belongs to ‘Parayan’ caste. Thereafter, the accused stated that, “if you people are appointed in Government service, you all will do like this only…”. Thereafter, he scolded the complainant calling his caste name and insulted him using vulgar words. Thereafter the colleagues of the complainant came there, pacified the accused and took him away.

 

Taking the allegations in the FIR at their face value, it would reveal that what is alleged is 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, the bench noted.

 

"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. We are, therefore, of the considered view 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," the bench said.

 

Relying upon State of Haryana and others Vs Bhajan Lal and others (1993), the bench said the court would be justified in exercising discretion if the case falls under any of the clauses carved out by this court.

 

"No doubt, that 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. It is equally settled that 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," the bench said.

 

The court concluded that the allegations made in the FIR, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence either under Section 3(1)(r) or under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act.

 

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order and quashed the charge sheet and all proceedings pending before Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli.