Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. M. Sundresh, S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.
Priti Agarwalla and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of GNCT of Delhi and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No (s). 348 of 2021
Decided On : 17-05-2024
Criminal Appeal No (s). 348 of 2021
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 156(3) – Caste abuse and intentional insult in public view – Direction for Police investigation – When application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. discloses a cognizable offence, then it is duty of concerned Magistrate to direct registration of FIR which is investigated by investigation agency, in accordance with law – Conversely, when information received does not prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence, but indicates necessity for inquiry, in that case, preliminary inquiry may be conducted in order to ascertain whether offence complained is cognizable or not – Purpose of preliminary inquiry is not to verify veracity or otherwise of information received but only to ascertain whether information received reveals a cognizable offence or not – Magistrate does not act mechanically and exercises his discretion judiciously by applying mind to circumstances complained of and offence alleged against accused for taking one or other step – In present case, Metropolitan Magistrate at relevant point of time was justified in ordering a preliminary inquiry on application and receiving Action Taken Report from jurisdictional police station – Accusations in complaints do not satisfy as having been made in any place within public view – In a case such as present, directing registration of FIR and further steps is unsustainable – Observations of High Court of Delhi directing registration of FIR, is untenable and warrants interference – Order of Metropolitan Magistrate upheld. (Paras 14.2, 14.3, 26, 27 and 29)
Facts of the case:
Controversy considered in present appeal reflects whether the athletes under training at Olympic Riding and Equestrian Academy (OREA), who wanted to control the mind and body of a horse, have lost calmness, suppleness and flexibility while being trained at OREA. Criminal Appeal concerns the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 on 29.04.2018 before SHO P.S. Fatehpur Beri, South Delhi under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against Appellants herein and application dated 09.05.2018 filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before Metropolitan Magistrate, South Saket Court, Delhi.
Findings of Court:
By looking at number of cases filed, acrimonious allegations and counter-allegations made between parties, doubt arises whether someone who cannot calm oneself can calm and guide a horse in horse’s enthusiasm to perform each element with minimum encouragement from rider and be an equestrian. We leave it to passion and path of parties.
Result : Criminal Appeal allowed.
The ratio decidendi of this case regarding the point about WhatsApp chat and its admissibility is that for an online chat or digital communication to be considered in the context of an offence under the relevant Act, it must meet certain criteria, notably that the communication was made in "public view" or in a manner accessible to the public or third parties. The Court emphasized that the mere existence of a chat or conversation, such as one on WhatsApp, does not automatically qualify as an act committed in "public view" unless it can be shown that the content was accessible or visible to the public or a third party in a manner that satisfies the legal requirement for such offences.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that the content of digital messages or chats must be examined intrinsically to determine whether they contain elements that constitute an offence under the law, considering the context and the nature of the communication. If the content does not demonstrate that the communication was made in a manner accessible to the public or in a public place, then it cannot be deemed to have been made in "public view" for the purposes of the offence.
In this case, the Court found that the allegations based on WhatsApp conversations did not sufficiently establish that the messages were made in "public view" or in a manner that would attract the provisions of the relevant Act. The content of the chat, when read in context, did not contain the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence, particularly because the communication was not demonstrated to have been accessible to the public or third parties in a manner that would fulfill the legal requirement.
Thus, the admissibility and consideration of WhatsApp chats hinge on their being made in a manner that satisfies the statutory requirement of "public view," and mere digital communication, without this element, cannot be automatically relied upon to establish an offence under the law.
JUDGMENT
S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The Olympic Riding and Equestrian Academy, Eastern Jaunapur, New Delhi (for short, “OREA”), is a training facility for enthusiastic equestrian athletes. Mr. Kapil Nath Modi administers and runs the said training facility. Appellant Nos. 2, 3, 6 and Respondent No. 2 were the trainee athletes in OREA. Appellant No. 1 is the mother of Appellant No. 2. Appellant Nos. 4 and 5 are the parents of Appellant No. 6.
2. Appellant No. 2 was admitted for equestrian training into the Academy in June 2010. Appellant No. 3 was accepted into OREA in the year 2009. Appellant No. 6 has also been receiving training in the Academy for a little over two years. Respondent No. 2, a passionate athlete who dreamt of being the first Olympic champion of dressage, claims to have been receiving training in equestrian sport in OREA since 2015.
2.1 The equestrian sport dates back to the ancient Greek era and has been an Olympic sport from 1900 onwards. The dressage sport is popularly known as horse ballet. The riders and their horses are judged based on their movement, calmness, suppleness and flexibility. One judges the horse’s enthusiasm to perform each element with minimum encouragement from the rider. For strangers to the sport, including non-equestrian athletes, this sport displays the perfect sync between the horse and the rider.
3. The controversy considered in the present appeal reflects whether the athletes under training at OREA, who wanted to control the mind and body of a horse, have lost the calmness, suppleness and flexibility while being trained at OREA. The Criminal Appeal concerns the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 on 29.04.2018 before SHO P.S. Fatehpur Beri, South Delhi under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act of 1989”) against the Appellants herein and the application dated 09.05.2018 filed under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the CrPC”) before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, South Saket Court, Delhi.
3.1 A few dates and events between the contesting parties from 03.04.2018 to 09.05.2018 are prefaced to the narrative. On 03.04.2018, Appellant No. 4 filed a complaint before SHO, P.S. Fatehpur Beri, against the administrator of OREA. The said complaint is not made under any specific section of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The administrator, however, considering the nature of the allegations in the FIR lodged against him before SHO, P.S. Fatehpur Beri, on 06.04.2018, moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Saket District Court, Delhi. On 11.04.2018, the anticipatory bail application of the administrator stood dismissed. On 12.04.2018, Appellant No. 1 and her husband filed yet another complaint against the administrator of OREA, on the alleged ill-treatment meted out to their son/Appellant No. 2 by the administrator. On 14.04.2018 and 15.04.2018, as the calmness of all the persons concerned is noticeably lost, in quick succession, admittedly, yet another complaint alleging sexual harassment, cheating and cruelty towards animals was filed against the administrator by Appellant Nos. 3, 4 and 6. A WhatsApp group “Alliance” was created by Appellant No. 6, which included Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and one Daksh Mittal, another trainee athlete at OREA. Daksh Mittal wrote a letter dated 21.04.2018 to the administrator, informing the conspiracy being hatched by the members of the “Alliance” WhatsApp group to kill the administrator and attack Respondent No. 2 by pouring acid on Respondent No. 2. The administrator, on 22.04.2018, by referring to the letter dated 21.04.2018, filed a complaint before SHO P.S. Fatehpur Beri for protection and also to prevent any plan being executed either on the administrator or Respondent No. 2 by a few members of the WhatsApp group, “Alliance”. It is not preposterous to advert at this stage of the narrative that the complaint dated 22.04.2018 dealt with what is infor
In law, an administrative enquiry presupposes enquiry into circumstances in which a public servant has a reason for not acting as expected by provisions of SC/ST Act of 1989 or whether willfully negl....
The court established that mere allegations of caste-based insults are insufficient to invoke the SC/ST Act unless there is clear evidence of intent to humiliate based on caste and that the incident ....
The court ruled that appeals under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 must be filed under Section 14-A regardless of acquittal under the Act but conviction under IPC, clarifying legi....
The main legal point established is that the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. cannot be held to be maintainable when offences alleged against applicant includes offence punishable under Sec....
Cognizance taken without hearing the accused for added charges under IPC is unsustainable; rights to a fair process must be preserved.
The court ruled that allegations under the SC/ST Act must demonstrate intent to humiliate based on caste, and the second proviso of Section 14-A(3) was struck down as unconstitutional.
The court emphasized that an FIR under the SC/ST Act requires the humiliation of a SC/ST member to occur in public view; allegations must substantiate a cognizable offense.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
