Mere allegations without evidence of public view do not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act unless insults target caste identity in a public context.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

2. The background facts of the case, in brief, are that on 26.11.2013, one Abhiram Sethy lodged a written report before the I.I.C., Chhendipada, alleging that on the same day at about 12.00 noon, while he was returning home from Bagadia on his motorcycle, the Petitioner along with five others obstructed his way near the village High School, abused him in filthy language, and the Petitioner further assaulted him on the head with an iron rod, causing injury. It was further alleged that the Petitioner also hurled caste-related abuses at the Informant. On the basis of the said report, Chhendipada P.S. Case No.233 of 2013 was registered for the offences under Sections 341 /323/294/506/34 IPC read with Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted, whereafter the learned court took cognizance of the offences and issued process against the Petitioner.

3. Mr. Rayaguru, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in CRLMC No.6188 of 2014 praying for quashing of the FIR, wherein this Court, by order dated 16.12.2014, declined to interfere and permitted the investigation to proceed. It is further contended that the impugned order taking cognizance suffers from illegality inasmuch as it is based on no evidence; neither the FIR nor the materials on record disclose any prima facie case to implicate the Petitioner in the alleged offences. Learned counsel argues that allegations in the FIR are false, inherently improbable, and such that no prudent person could arrive at the conclusion that they are sufficient to proceed against the Petitioner. Hence, the impugned order, being not in consonance with law, deserves to be quashed. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the decisions reported in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & another, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 668 Karuppudayar vs. State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy & others, reported in AIR 2025 SC 705 ; Chirag Sen & another Etc. vs. State of Karnataka & another reported in 2025 INSC 903; Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of A.P. & others, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531 ; Hitesh Verma vs. The State of Uttarakhan & another, reported in AIR 2020 SC 5584 .

4. Per contra, Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the contentions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner. It is submitted that the allegations made in the FIR, duly supported by the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation, clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences and prima facie implicate the Petitioner. However, at the stage of cognizance, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case exists and not to meticulously evaluate the sufficiency of evidence for conviction. Since the investigation culminated in a charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate, upon due consideration, has taken cognizance of the offences, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal or without basis. Hence, the prayer for quashing, as made by the Petitioner, is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected.

5. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 668, as follows –

“17. The first question that calls for an answer is whether it was at a place within public view that the appellant hurled caste related abuses at the complainant with an intent to insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate him. From the charge-sheet dated 21st January, 2016 filed by the I.O., it appears that the prosecu