The court emphasized that an FIR under the SC/ST Act requires the humiliation of a SC/ST member to occur in public view; allegations must substantiate a cognizable offense.

ORDER :

In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.4459/2020:

1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a prayer to quash FIR No.234/2020 registered at Police Station-Harmada, District-Jaipur (West) for offences under Sections 323 , 341, 336, 427, 456, 143, 509 & 380 IPC and Sections 3(1)(d), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989').

2. It is stated that complainant-Mukesh Kumar Raiger lodged an FIR alleging therein that his neighbour (Murari Lal Choudhary) came to his house at around 3:00 a.m. on 24.05.2020 along with 10-15 other persons and started stone pelting and forcibly entered in his house and abused the complainant by referring to his caste. He also assaulted mother of the complainant and misbehaved with his wife. Despite information given to the police station, no effective action was taken against the accused-petitioner.

3. By challenging the aforesaid FIR, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegations levelled in the FIR are totally vague, ambiguous and evasive. Bare reading of the contents of the FIR would not make out any cognizable offence against the petitioner. Although general reference of involvement 10-15 persons has been given in the FIR, yet name of not a single person apart from the petitioner has been mentioned in the FIR. It is also submitted that the reason for falsely implicating the petitioner appears to be the fact that the petitioner is a government servant, serving as a constable in the Police Department, and in case of inclusion of provision of SC/ST Act, the statutory bar on granting anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 comes into operation, thus the FIR has been lodged with ulterior motive as a planned device to ensure the petitioner's arrest and consequential suspension from service.

4. It was further mentioned that nebulous allegations with regard to hurling abuses by referring the caste of the complainant, have been levelled only in order to create sensation and to unnecessarily implicate the petitioner in harsher provisions of the Act of 1989. It is submitted that a bare perusal of FIR itself would make it clear that as per complainant himself the alleged incident had taken place at 3:00 a.m. at night and there was no reference whatsoever that any other person, except the family of the complainant was present there to witness and observe the incident.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 3(1) (r) of the Act of 1989, which makes it clear that, whoever not being a member of Scheduled Caste or 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 punishable with the sentence as mentioned in Section 3(1) of the Act of 1989.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the necessary ingredients for invoking the provisions of the Act of 1989 is that the humiliation alleged against a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe should be at a place within public view. In the instant case, admittedly, as per the contents of the FIR, the alleged incident has not taken place within public view.

7. It is also submitted that time and again, Hon