Allegations of caste-based abuse must occur in public view to be actionable under the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act; domestic disputes are not covered under this statute.

ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.229 of 2020 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for SC/STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Heard Mr. Vimal Varma Vasireddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State.

3. On 04.04.2019, the de-facto complainant lodged a report against the petitioners. Both were college classmates. The complainant left for Australia in 2003 to pursue higher education and returned to Hyderabad in 2006, started his own architectural and interior design business in 2007. The marriage of the 1^st petitioner was performed with her brother-in-law and she blessed with a daughter. Thereafter, disputes arose between them and they lived separately and she got divorce in the year 2009-10.

4. The 1^st petitioner and de-facto complainant married on 19^th January 2014 which is an inter-caste marriage i.e., complainant belongs to Mala Scheduled Caste, 1^st petitioner to Kapu community. After the said marriage, they lived in Hyderabad, and they have purchased a car jointly. However, the petitioner’s family humiliated the complainant over his caste, calling him derogatory names and burning his clothes at their home.

5. Due to these tensions, marital life of de-facto complainant was disturbed. The petitioner complained about the complainant’s parents and forced him to move out. They lived separately in a rented luxury apartment, but conflicts over lifestyle expenses and the petitioners’ demands for a more lavish life caused frequent arguments. In February 2017, the complainant moved to Mumbai for work but later convinced the petitioner to reunite. The petitioner then lived mostly alone in a luxury apartment in Hyderabad, with occasional visits from the complainant, who continued financial support.

6. In July 2018, after celebrating the petitioner’s birthday, she suddenly demanded divorce, accompanied by caste-based insults and threats, including statements to ruin the complainant and his family. She threatened to file false cases and humiliated him by smoking at home, which was unusual behavior. From July 17, 2018, she sent WhatsApp messages insisting on divorce, citing “cultural differences” mostly related to caste issues.

7. The complainant agreed to mutual divorce but asked for return of money and joint assets. The petitioner initially agreed but later refused and imposed conditions, refusing to appoint a lawyer or family member to facilitate the divorce. She verbally abused the complainant, demanded to leave the house, and threatened him with eviction and further harassment.

8. Based on this complaint, a case was registered under Section 504 IPC and the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. The police investigated, recorded statements and verifying caste certificates. The petitioner challenged police action in Telangana High Court, which restrained coercive measures against her. Notices under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C were served, and investigation is going on.

9. While the matter stood thus and was under consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another , (2020) 10 SCC 710 . He further submits that the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 is not attracted in the present case, as all the allegations made against the petitioner relate to matrimonial disputes, which