SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Raj) 2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANDEEP SHAH, J.
Dr. Deepak Arora, S/o. Nandlal Arora – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7662 Of 2025
Decided On : 07-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harshit Bhurani
For the Respondent: Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG, Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, Dy. GA, Mr. Bharat Raj, Ad. S.P. CID (CB), Jaipur, Mr. Hemendra Singh, Mr. Moti Singh, Adv.

The Court held that incidents must occur in public view for SC/ST Act offenses, and the term 'neech' does not qualify as caste-based abuse.

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) - FIR for assault and caste-based slurs - Petitioner’s claim for quashing of FIR as ingredients of offences not established - Offences not made out as incident occurred in private office, not public view - Use of 'neech' does not constitute caste-based abuse. (Paras 2, 6, 24, 56)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 (corresponding Section 528 BNSS, 2023) - Scope of quashing FIR - Interference only in rarest cases where allegations do not constitute an offence. (Paras 11, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an academic, faced FIR for assault and caste-based insults in a director’s office during a faculty meeting. The complainant alleged physical assault and caste slurs; the petitioner argued that the FIR lacked substantive evidence and the alleged acts did not fulfill the criteria of the SC/ST Act.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that since the alleged offences did not occur in a public view and necessary ingredients for the SC/ST offenses were missing, the FIR was quashed relevant to those sections, but allowed investigation for others.

Issues: 1) Scope of interference under Section 528 BNSS. 2) Whether incidents occurred in public view as per SC/ST Act provisions. 3) Definition and application of 'public servant' concerning the offences. 4) Application of SC/ST Act standards for caste-based abuse. 5) Status of officers of educational institutions under relevant laws.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that for offences under SC/ST Act, the incidents must occur in public view; 'neech' does not represent a caste identity; and qualifications for 'public servant' include certain educational directors, thereby retaining some allegations while dismissing others.

Result: FIR quashed regarding Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va), but investigation for Sections 121(1) and 132 allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's application and fir details. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's prior order regarding the petition. (Para 3)
3. petitioner asserts no offence is established. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. arguments by respondent counsel regarding fir. (Para 7 , 8)
5. court's analysis of fir investigation rights. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
6. guidelines for judicial interference in investigations. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
7. conditions for fir quashing are clarified. (Para 15 , 16)
8. definition and understanding of 'public view'. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
9. analysis on whether offence occurred in public view. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
10. court's interpretation of caste-based insults. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
11. analysis of intent and meaning of 'neech'. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
12. definition of public servant in context. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
13. public servant definitions through case law. (Para 35 , 36 , 37)
14. analysis of the director's status as public servant. (Para 38 , 39 , 40)
15. public funding indicates public servant status. (Para 41 , 42 , 43)
16. court's finding on continuing investigation. (Para 44 , 45)
17. discussion on elements of section 3(2)(va) sc/st act. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
18. comparison of factual scenarios in case law. (Para 53 , 54)
19. court's conclusion on quashing fir. (Para 55 , 56)
20. final order on the petition. (Para 57)

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHAH, J.

1. Petitioner- an Associate Professor working at Indian Institute of Technology, Jodhpur has filed the present criminal miscellaneous petition with the following prayer:-

A. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed to this Hon’ble Court that the present misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the FIR No.118/2025 Dated 02.09.2025 registered at P.S. Karwar, District Jodhpur City East for offences under Section 121(1) & 132 of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita. & 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and all further proceedings initiated thereto may kindly be quashed and set aside.

Factual Matrix:-

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Ankur Gupta, Acting Registrar, IIT, Jodhpur lodged an FIR No.118/2025 registered at Police Station Karwar, District Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act on 02.09.2025 while alleging therein that on 02.09.2025 at around 11.30 a.m., the present petitioner was in a discussion with the Director of IIT Jodhpur, Professor Sh. Avinash Agarwal at the Director’s Office at the 2nd floor of the Western Administrative Wing (Chanakya Building) and at the relevant time Dr. Parag Deshpande, Head of Chemical Engineering Department and Dr. Neeraj Jain, Dean, Faculty Affairs were present in the office of the Director. It was alleged in the FIR that during the discussion, Dr. Deepak Arora present petitioner attempted a life threatening assault on the Director, Professor Mr. Avinash Agarwal and also physically attacked him. In retaliation and in self defence, the Director, Professor Mr. Avinash Agarwal caught both the hands of the petitioner, upon which the petitioner kicked the Director and obstructed the exit to ensure that the Director does not leave the office. It has further been alleged that due to the kick caused by the petitioner, the Director, Professor Mr. Avinash Agarwal suffered an injury on his right foot. The FIR further narrates that some other officers working under the Director came to intervene in the Director’s Office, upon which, the petitioner started assaulting them also and even abused Mr. Vivek Gautam using caste based slurs and even called him ‘neech’. The petitioner further started abusing Mr. Vivek Gautam and threatened him with dire consequences and further stated that the family members of Mr. Vivek Gautam will be killed. It was further stated in the FIR that Mr. Vivek Gautam sustained an injury on his right hand due to assault made by the petitioner. Finally the request was made for initiating appropriate proc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top