Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 251

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Karuppudayar – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Lalgudi Trichy & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 496-497 of 2025 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8778- 8779 of 2024]
Decided On : 31-01-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Yadav, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Singh, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Insult within public view – If alleged offence takes place within four corners of wall where members of public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place within public view.
(2) Exercise of Inherent Jurisdiction – Power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of rare cases.

Headnote:
(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Commission of atrocities – Insult within public view – For constituting an offence thereunder, it has to be established that 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 SC-ST Act, it will be necessary that 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’, place should be open where members of public can witness or hear utterance made by accused to victim – If alleged offence takes place within four corners of wall where members of public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place within public view – As per FIR, incident has taken place within four corners of chambers of complainant – Other colleagues of complainant arrived at scene after occurrence of incident – Since incident has not taken place at a place which can be termed to be a place within public view, offence would not come under provisions of either Section 3(1)(r) or Section 3(1)(s) of SC-ST Act – Criminal proceedings quashed and set aside. (Paras 9, 11, 14, 15 and 21)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Exercise of Inherent Jurisdiction – Power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of rare cases – Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in FIR or complaint – However, court would be justified in exercising its discretion if case falls under any of clauses carved out by this Court in Paragraph 102 in case of Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
By way of impugned order, High Court dismissed petitions filed by Appellant under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein Appellant has prayed to call for records relating to proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.7 of 2022 pending before Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli and to quash the same.
Findings of Court:
Judgment and final order dated 28th February 2024 in Criminal Original Petition (MD) No. 6676 of 2022 and Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (MD) No.4621 of 2022 passed by Single Judge of High Court of Madras at Madurai is quashed and set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals challenge the judgment and final order dated 28th February 2024 in Criminal Original Petition (MD) No. 6676 of 2022 and Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (MD) No.4621 of 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras at Madurai.

3. By way of the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the petitions filed by the Appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, “CrPC”) wherein the Appellant has prayed to call for records relating to proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.7 of 2022 pending before the I- Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli and to quash the same.

4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeals are as under:

4.1 The prosecution story is that on 2nd September 2021 the Appellant approached the Respondent No. 3 (Mr. Ravikumar, Revenue Inspector) in order to inquire regarding the status of a petition filed in the name of Appellant’s father concerning inclusion of Appellant’s father’s name in the patta¹ [‘Patta’ is a government issued document which contains various details such as landowner’s name, land survey number, type of land, location of land, etc. that validates the ownership of land.] for the land situated in Natham UDR, Sembarai village.

4.2 A quarrel developed between Appellant and Respondent No. 3 whereby the Appellant abused Respondent No.3 by using his caste name in the Revenue Divisional Office, Lalgudi, Tiruchirappalli.

4.3 Consequently, Respondent No. 3 filed a complaint before the Respondent No. 2 (Sub-Inspector of Police, Lalgudi Police Station, Trichy) and case being Crime No. 676 of 2021 was registered against the Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”) read with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter, “SC-ST Act”).

4.4 After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed by the Respondent No.1 (Investigating Officer/Deputy Superintendent of Police) in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, Tiruchirappalli and the case was committed to the Sessions Court.

4.5 As a result of the same, a case being Spl. S.C. No. 7 of 2022 was initiated against the Appellant before the I- Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli (hereinafter, “trial court”).

4.6 Aggrieved by the initiation of criminal proceedings so also the trial, the Appellant filed petitions under Section 482 of CrPC before the High Court to call for the records relating to Spl. S.C. No. 7 of 2022 and to quash the same.

4.7 The learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide the impugned judgment and final order, held that no prejudice would be caused to Appellant if he is subjected to trial and dismissed his petitions.

4.8 Aggrieved thereby, the present appeals arise by way of special leave.

5. We have heard Smt. Vanshaja Shukla, the leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Shri Sabarish Subramanian, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

6. Smt. Vanshaja Shukla submitted that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has grossly erred in rejecting the petition of the Appellant. 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. She, therefore, submits that the learned Single Judge of the High Court ought to have exercised his jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC and quashed the proceedings.

7. As against this, Shri Sabarish Subramanian, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that upon detailed investigation a charge-sheet was filed by the then Investigating Officer (Respondent No.1 herein). Learned Single Judge of the High Court, on a perusal of the charge-sheet, found that no case for quashing of the proceedings was made out. He, therefore, submits tha