The FIR lacked necessary elements to constitute an offence under the Atrocities Act, as no derogatory remarks or public view were established.

ORDER :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

Learned advocate for the petitioner does not press for this petition insofar as the offence punishable under the IPC. Permission as prayed for is granted. Thus, this petition is confined to the offence punishable under the Atrocities Act.

2. By way of this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the FIR being C.R. No. 11211058200447 of 2020 with Bajana Police Station, District Surendranagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(s), 3 (1) (r) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,) 1989.

3. The short facts of the case as emerging from the FIR are that since in past offence was registered against the family members of the org. accused no.2, keeping grudge over the same, the incident erupted between the parties wherein org. accused no.2 was accompanied by the present petitioners and other co-accused resulting into a lodgment of the FIR.

4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and learned APP for the respondent – State. Though served, respondent no.2 has not appeared.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners taking to the FIR would submit that general allegations are made against the petitioners and no such ingredients of the alleged offence is attracted if the FIR is read at its face value. In regards to the allegations made under the Atrocities Act, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that FIR does not disclose the fact that any derogatory words was used by the petitioner to lower the caste of the first informant. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that if the FIR is read as it is no such ingredients of the alleged offence is found prima facie to have been attracted qua the petitioner and therefore by making above submissions, he would submit to allow this petition and to quash the FIR.

6. Learned APP for the respondent – State would taking this Court through the statement made in the FIR submitted that offence alleged to have been made out against the petitioners as the petitioners have used derogatory words to lower the caste of the complainant and therefore prima-facie material is made out which constitute the offence as alleged in the FIR. He would therefore submit to dismiss the present petition.

7. As noted herein above, respondent no.2 though served has not appeared to contest the petition.

8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and examining the FIR as it is, it appears that since in past offence was registered against the family members of the org. accused no.2, keeping grudge over the same, the incident erupted between the parties wherein org. accused no.2 was accompanied by the present petitioners and other co-accused resulting into a lodgment of the FIR.

9. Prima facie, reading of the FIR does not disclose any offence as alleged under the Atrocities Act in the FIR. It could be noticed that offence under under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5)(a) of the Atrocities Act is alleged; however none of the averments made in the FIR attracts the said provision. What could be noticed that at no where it is stated in the FIR that accused belongs to general caste and first informant belongs to schedule caste and by using such derogatory remarks he had insulted his caste in public place. Even, which kind of the words are used to derogate the caste of the complainant is not coming out from the FIR. Baring allegations nothing is coming from the FIR to satisfy the ingredient of the offence alleged against the petitioners. To be noted that presence of third party in whose presence if such derogatory remarks are made is also missing in the present case and therefore also necessary ingredients to satisfy the offence under the Atrocities Act are missing.

10. In Karuppudayar vs State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy and Others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 215], the Apex Court examined the terms public view and ha