Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(MP) 750

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Rakesh Kumar Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
Tularam Shakya And Others – Respondents
MISC. Criminal Case No. 48997 of 2019
Decided On : 05-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shri Vijay Dutta Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Shri Dinesh Savita, PP, Shri Ankur Maheshwari, Advocate

For an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the insult or abuse must occur in a place within public view; an incident inside an office chamber does not satisfy this ingredient.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 506 (Part II) - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(5A) - Quashing of criminal complaint and cognizance order - Allegations of caste-based abuse by teacher against principal - Incident alleged to have occurred inside principal's office - Held, for offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, the insult or abuse must be in a place within public view - Office chambers not a place within public view as per principles in Swaran Singh v. State and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand - Allegations even if taken at face value do not constitute the offence - Complaint also found to be malicious and based on personal grudge - Case falls under categories (1) and (7) of Bhajan Lal guidelines - Complaint and order quashed.

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Power to quash proceedings - Inherent jurisdiction - Exercise sparingly and in rarest of rare cases - However, where allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence or are manifestly attended with mala fide, quashing is justified - Reliance on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) categories.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a teacher, and the respondent, the principal, were posted in the same school. The respondent filed a criminal complaint alleging that on 06.07.2018, the petitioner came to his office, abused him using caste-related words, and tore papers. The respondent also claimed to have submitted a complaint to the police but no action was taken. The Special Judge, Atrocities took cognizance under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5A) of the SC/ST Act and Section 506/2 IPC. The petitioner sought quashing, arguing that the complaint was baseless and a counterblast due to personal enmity, and that a police enquiry had found the allegations exaggerated and false. The court below had not considered that the incident occurred inside the office, not in public view, and that the key witness (peon) was not examined.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that for an offence under Section 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the insult or abuse must be in a place within public view. Citing Swaran Singh and Hitesh Verma, the Court observed that an office chamber within four walls is not a place within public view unless members of the public are present. The allegations in the complaint, even taken at face value, did not satisfy this essential ingredient. Additionally, the complaint was found to be malicious and instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance, falling under categories (1) and (7) of Bhajan Lal. The court below had not appreciated this aspect. Consequently, the criminal complaint and the cognizance order were quashed.

Issues: 1. Whether the alleged incident of caste-based abuse inside the principal's office constitutes an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, given the requirement that it occur in a place within public view? 2. Whether the criminal complaint was manifestly malicious and baseless, warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC?

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the expression "any place within public view" requires that the insult or abuse occur in a location open to public observation. An office chamber is not a public view place unless members of the public are present. Since the complaint alleged the incident inside the principal's office, the essential ingredient of the offence was missing. Moreover, the complaint was found to be inherently improbable and malicious, as evidenced by the police enquiry exonerating the petitioner and the complainant's failure to examine the alleged eyewitness. Therefore, the proceedings were an abuse of process and liable to be quashed.

Result: Criminal Complaint No.331/2018 and the order dated 03.05.2019 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Morena stand quashed.

ORDER :

RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal complaint No.331/2018 pending in the court of Special Judge Atrocities, Morena as well as for the quashing of the order dated 03.05.2019 passed by the same court by which the cognizance under Section 506/2 of IPC and Section 3(1)r, 3(1)s and 3(2) (5A) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act has been taken against the petitioner on the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondents are posted in the same school. The petitioner is UDT teacher in the Government Model Higher Secondary School Sabalgar Distt. Morena and the respondent no.1/complainant is the principal in the same school. The respondent No.1 filed a criminal complaint in the court of Special Judge Atrocities, Morena on 24.09.2018 in which the allegations were made that the petitioner is obstructing the respondent in the discharge of his official duties and the petitioner used to humiliate the respondent knowingly that the respondent belongs to the SC/ST community and also abused the respondent by abusing him is filthy and caste related words. It may be observed that the respondent No.1 and petitioner were not having harmonious relations and the respondent No.1 being the principal of the school was in a commanding position over the petitioner. The main allegation against the petitioner is that on 06.07.2018 when the respondent/complainant was in his office, the petitioner came at the door of the office and abused the complainant/respondent by taking the name of his cast and torn some papers which were in the hands of respondent/complainant. It was also pleaded that the complainant/respondent No.1 also submitted a written complaint before respondent No.2 as well as before the S.P. Morena but no enquiry/action has been taken by them so that he has filed the private complaint.

3. The two witnesses were examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the complainant/respondent No.1 before the court below, out of which one is said to be the peon of the school named Rajaram Jatav and second is the complainant himself. The learned court below called the police report in respect of the complaint submitted by the respondent No.1 before the P.S. Sabalgar and P.S. Sabalgar has submitted its enquiry report conducted on the complaint of respondent No.1. The learned court below after examining the witnesses on behalf of the respondent/complainant has passed the order dated dated 03.05.2019 by which the cognizance u/s 3(1)(r),(s) & 3(2)(5A) of SC ST Act and u/s 506-2 IPC has been taken against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2019, petitioner has preferred this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.1/complainant has filed a baseless complaint against the petitioner being malice and as a counter blast with the motive for taking revenge from the petitioner and the learned court below has committed error in taking the cognizance on the complaint of the respondent No.1 so that the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 03.05.2019 as well as for quashing of the complaint number 331/2018 registered in the court below Special Court Morena.

5. The learned court below has not considered the fact that the respondent no.1/complainant has not come before the court with clean hands. The complainant has made the misstatement before the court below that the P.S. Sabalgarh has not taken any action on his complaint, on the other hand the actual position is that on the perusal of Annexure P/3, it is apparently clear that a detailed enquiry has been conducted by the DSP Morena on the complaint of the respondent no.1 and during the enquiry several witnesses were examined and it was found that the complainant has submitted a malicious baseless complaint and the allegations made in the complaint were not found proved in the enquiry.

6. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 750

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIORRAJESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. Rakesh Kumar Sharma – Petitioner Versus Tularam Shakya And Others – RespondentsMISC. Criminal Case No. 48997 of 2019 Decided On : 05-01-2026

For an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the insult or abuse must occur in a place within public view; an incident inside an office chamber does not satisfy this ingredient.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Rakesh Kumar Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
Tularam Shakya And Others – Respondents
MISC. Criminal Case No. 48997 of 2019
Decided On : 05-01-2026