IMPORTANT POINT
Assault and abuse in public view – Public view is an essential ingredient to constitute offence under Section 3(1) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment dated 8th July, 2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby Criminal Appeal No. 729 of 2025 filed by the Appellants was dismissed. The said appeal was instituted under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ¹[In short, “SC/ST Act”], seeking to set aside the order dated 12th September, 2024 passed by the Trial Court summoning the Appellants to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code ²[In short, “IPC”] and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

3. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal may be summarized as follows:

3.1. Respondent No. 2 belongs to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community and was employed as a sweeper in the village. According to Respondent No. 2, Appellant No. 1 allegedly compelled her on multiple occasions to remove garbage from his house and, upon her refusal, threatened to implicate her and her children in criminal proceedings.

3.2. It is the case of the Respondent No.2 that, on 23rd July, 2023, while she was sweeping in the morning, the Appellant No.1 along with his son, Appellant No.2, and servant, Appellant No.3, began hurling abuses at her, assaulting her and thereafter started forcing themselves upon her.

3.3. Respondent No.2 alleges that she ran back to her house, but the Appellants chased her, entered her house and directed caste-based abuses at her. It is further claimed that they tore her clothes, threatened her and thereafter left the premises. On the following day, it is further alleged that the Appellants assaulted her son. When the Respondent No.2 approached the Police Station to lodge a complaint, the police allegedly refused to do so under the influence of Appellant No.1.

3.4. Based on these events, on 6th October, 2023, the Respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ³[In short, “CrPC”] before the Special Judge which led to the registration of Complaint No.64/2023 on 2nd December, 2023 under Sections 323, 504 of IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act against the Appellants. A separate complaint was also filed before the National Commission for Women on 26th July, 2023 against the Appellants regarding the same incidents.

3.5. The Appellants dispute all these allegations and contend that Respondent No.2 has withheld material facts and initiated the proceedings as a counter-blast. They contend that the allegations are false and the Respondent No.2’s son was never medically examined and no injury report was placed on the record. The delay in filing of complaint by the Respondent No.2 also casts doubt on their motive.

3.6. The Appellants assert that, on 24th July, 2023, it was the complainant’s son who assaulted Appellant No.3 with a sharp-edged weapon with the intention to kill, causing multiple injuries. It is further alleged that he also attempted to assault Appellant No.1. Consequently, FIR No.0179/2023 was registered on the same day under Sections 307 and 308 of IPC against the son of Respondent No.2.

4. Vide order dated 12th September, 2024, the Special Judge issued summons to the Appellants under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC, and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The Appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No.729/2025 under Section 14-A (1) of the SC/ST Act before the High Court, challenging the said summoning order, wherein the impugned order was passed.

5. The High Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the Criminal Appeal and upheld the order of the Trial Court. The High Court observed that on a prima facie evaluation of the material on record, the allegations disclosed cognizable offences and that there existed sufficient material to justify the summoning of the Appellants to face trial.

6. The High Court held that the complainant’s son was beaten by the Appellants on a public road, in pub