IMPORTANT POINTS
The incident took place inside the hall of a building in which the office of a private limited company was functioning. The prosecution has cited two witnesses who have allegedly seen the incident. They are employees of the same company. Whether they are friends or relatives of the de facto complainant or persons who have got any affinity towards the de facto complainant or whether they could be considered as “members of the public” are questions to be decided on evidence. The materials produced by the prosecution are sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act.

ORDER :

This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in the case S.C.No.71/2019 on the file of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Kottarakkara.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in the aforesaid case. The offences alleged against him are punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(i) I.P.C and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

3. The prosecution case is as follows:

The petitioner/accused and the second respondent/de facto complainant were employees of the company by name 'LIVIDUS'. The de facto complainant is a member of a scheduled caste. The accused is not a member of a scheduled caste. On 25.05.2018, at about 19.00 hours, in the hall in the building in which the office of the aforesaid company was functioning, the accused used obscene words to the annoyance of the de facto complainant and insulted and abused him by calling him by his caste name and also caught hold of the collar of the shirt of the de facto complainant and pushed him and threatened him that he would kill him. It is alleged that the accused had entertained enmity towards the de facto complainant for the reason that the de facto complainant had given prior information to the Managing Director of the company regarding the decision taken by the accused to conduct a strike in the company.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the second respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, according to the prosecution case, the incident occurred inside a hall in the office of a private company and that it was not a public place and therefore, the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act are not attracted. Learned counsel would also contend that, obscene words were allegedly used by the petitioner not in a public place and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 294(b) I.P.C is also not attracted.

6. Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that, in order to attract the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act, it is not necessary that the act of insult or intimidation or abuse by the accused shall be committed in a public place but it is only sufficient that such act is committed in a place within public view. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the contentions of the learned counsel for the second respondent.

7. Section 3(1)(r) of the Act provides that, whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, shall be punished. Section 3(1)(s) of the Act provides that, whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view, shall be punished.

8. Intentional insult or intimidation with the intention to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, by a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, in any place within public view, attracts the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. Abuse of any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name, by a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, in any place within public view, attracts the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act. It is necessary that commission of the acts of intentional insult or intimidation or abuse shall be done in a place within public view.

9. The distinction between the expressions “public place” and “in any place within public view” has been elucidated by the Supreme Court in Swaran Singh v. State : (2008) 8 SCC 435 as follows:

“It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar,