The court held that an FIR alleging offences under the Atrocities Act must disclose specific derogatory remarks made in public view, which was not established in this case.

ORDER

Learned advocate for the petitioner does not press for this petition qua offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code lodged pursuant to FIR vide C.R. No. 11209014201172 of 2020 registered with Gambhoi Police Station Accordingly, petition stands disposed of as not pressed qua the aforesaid charges.

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

3. 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.

4. 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.

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

6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and examining the FIR as it is, it appears that since in respect the land dispute some ruckus took place between the parties and it is alleged that accused had given some kick and fist blows and also lower the complainant on his caste he being a member of schedule caste and schedule tribe which resulted into a lodgment of the FIR.

7. 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), 5, 3 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.

8. 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 has held in paragraph 10 to 11 as under:

“9. A perusal of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC-ST Act would reveal that for constituting an offence thereunder, it has to be established that the 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 the SC-ST Act, it will be necessary that the accused abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view.

10. The term “any place within public view” initially came up for consideration before this Court in the cas