IMPORTANT POINT
Intentional insult and criminal intimidation – Intention to insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe must be in any place within public view.

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein, is aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No.580 of 2019. The High Court in the said revision petition, which assailed the order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in T.R. No.400 of 2016, has sustained the same and consequently, the Criminal Revision No.580 of 2019 has been dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the first respondent-State and learned counsel for the second respondent-complainant and perused the material on record and the provisions which are applicable to the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the second respondent herein, had instituted a Criminal Complaint against the appellant herein, under Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as “SC & ST (POA) Act” for the sake of convenience.

5. Before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in T.R. No.400 of 2016, the appellant herein, filed an application under Section 239, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) to discharge him from the aforesaid offences by the impugned order dated 02.08.2019, but the said application was rejected. Being aggrieved, the appellant herein preferred Criminal Revision No.580 of 2019 before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. The same has also been dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Section 3(i) (x) of the SC and ST (POA) Act as it is stood prior to its amendment dated 26.01.2016, is applicable to the instant case. The said provision states that whoever, not being a member of the Scheduled Caste or the Schedule Tribe intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months and which may extend to five years with fine. In the instant case, assuming for the sake of argument that the words uttered by the appellant herein, against the second respondentcomplainant are insulting or intimidating with an intent to humiliate the second respondent herein, the same was not in any place within public view. He submitted that the alleged offence occurred in the backyard of the appellant’s house. The same is not a place within the public view. He submitted that the second 3 respondent-complainant had trespassed into the said backyard along with her employees for the purpose of plastering her house, and since she had trespassed into the appellant’s property, without seeking any permission, the appellant may have uttered the said words. Since the said place i.e. the backyard of the appellant’s house, is not within the public view, it cannot be said that the offence had been committed by the appellant herein within the meaning of the said provision. He further submitted that the second respondent had entered the backyard of the appellant’s house along with her labourforce for the purpose of carrying out the plastering work. The same cannot be said to be within public view within the meaning of Clause (x) under sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the SC and ST (POA) Act.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant also drew our attention to paragraph “60” of the judgment of this Court in Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttarakhand (2020 10 SCC 710) to contend that there is also a dispute with the second respondent herein, inasmuch as a suit has been filed on 10.08.2015 in C.S.8059 of 2015 by the appellant’s wife against the second respondent and her husband which is pending on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhubaneswar. Therefore, the offence as against the second respondent herein, could not have been said to have been made out at all and hence, the registr