Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, AOR Ms. Urvashi Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Jatin Khatri, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Saroja, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Kamal Rattan Digpaul, Adv. Ms. Harshita Choubey, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. Udit Dediya, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Banju, AOR

What is the required place of occurrence for offences under SC/ST Act to be established? What is the remedy or outcome when charges are framed without satisfying the "place within public view" requirement? What are the consequences when FIR/charge-sheet do not disclose essential ingredients of the offences under SC/ST Act?

Key Points: - The offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act require the act to occur "in any place within public view" for the offences to be made out. (!) (!) (!) - The FIR/complaint must disclose essential ingredients of the alleged offences; if not, the FIR/charge-sheet can be quashed or the charges can be quashed. (!) (!) - The High Court’s framing of charges under SC/ST Act requires that the acts be in a place within public view; if not, framing of charges may be improper. (!) (!) - In this case, the incident allegedly occurred within four walls of a private residence with no independent public witnesses, leading to the finding that the place was not within public view and the charges under SC/ST Act were not sustainable. (!) (!) - The Court set aside the lower court orders and quashed the FIR and charge-sheet in relation to the SC/ST Act and Section 506/34 IPC. (!) (!) - The appeal was allowed; the impugned judgments and orders were not sustainable. (!)

What is the required place of occurrence for offences under SC/ST Act to be established?

What is the remedy or outcome when charges are framed without satisfying the "place within public view" requirement?

What are the consequences when FIR/charge-sheet do not disclose essential ingredients of the offences under SC/ST Act?