To establish an offence under the SC/ST Act, the conduct must occur in public view with independent witnesses; otherwise, proceedings may be quashed as an abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the material brought on record.

3. The present application has been filed for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 07.07.2016, bearing charge sheet no.15/16 in Special Criminal Case No. 96 of 2016 ( State Vs. Faujdar and others ), arising out of Case Crime No.317 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. & 3(1)Da, Dha & 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "SC/ST Act') Police Station - Saidpur, District - Ghazipur, pending in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ghazipur.

4. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.03.2016 an N.C.R. No.63 of 2016 was lodged at Police Station- Saidpur, District- Ghazipur under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. against the applicants by the opposite party no.2 stating therein that on 17.03.2016, the applicants were constructing drain in the field of opposite party no.2 forcefully and when the same being opposed by opposite party no.2, the applicants abused him by using caste related words and also assaulted his son with lathi and danda.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the invocation of the provisions of SC/ST Act is wholly misconceived inasmuch as the essential statutory ingredients of the alleged offence having been committed “in any place within public view" is completely absent. It is contended that, as per the prosecution case itself, the alleged incident was only witnessed by the informant Shyam Dev Gaud and his son Vinod Gaud, who are admittedly interested and related witnesses and no independent member of the public was present at the place of occurrence.

6. It is further argued that neither the FIR nor the charge sheet specifies the exact caste-related words allegedly used, nor does it disclose whether the alleged caste-related words, if any, were made with intention to humiliate the informant on account of his caste and in a place within the public view, which is mandatory statutory requirement for attracting offences under SC/ST Act "in any place within public view".

7. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his argument has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. State of U.P. & Another, (2023) 0 SC 550 [Criminal Appeal No. 1617, decided on 19.05.2023] wherein it has been held that every insult or intimidation does not constitute an offence under SC/ST Act and that in the absence of any independent public witness and public view, continuance of proceedings under SC/ST Act would amount of abuse of process of law.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held in the case of Swaran Singh vs. State , (2008) 8 SCC 435 , that the expression "in any place within the public view" does not mean merely a place accessible to the public, but requires the presence of independent members and interested witness does not specify this requirement. Similarly in Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Another, (2020) 10 SCC 710 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the dispute occurring in a private place or where any member of the public is present does not attract offence under Section 3(1) Da, Dha of SC/ST Act.

9. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, that if the contents of the