The essential ingredients for prosecution under the Atrocities Act include the requirement that insults must occur in public view, which was not established in this case.

ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , seeking the quashing of First Information Report (FIR) I-C.R. No. 11210030210420 of 2021, registered with the Mahidharpura Police Station, Surat. The FIR alleges offences under Section s 114 , 323, 452, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section s 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter "the Atrocities Act").

2. It is pertinent to note that by an order dated 31.03.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the charges concerning the offences under the IPC. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of for the offences under Sections 114, 323, 452, and 506(2) of the IPC. This judgment is, therefore, confined to the allegations under the Atrocities Act.

SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER:-

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations pertaining to the offences under the Atrocities Act are unsustainable in law and fact. The primary contention is that the FIR is based on vague and general allegations, lacking the necessary particulars to constitute the alleged offences.

3.1. It is forcefully argued that the FIR fails to specify the exact derogatory words allegedly spoken by the petitioners. The FIR merely contains a bare and vague assertion that "derogatory words spoken for lowering the petitioner’s caste" were used. The absence of specific words or insults is fatal to the prosecution's case, as it does not allow the Court to determine if a prima facie offence is made out.

3.2. Crucially, the learned counsel contends that an essential ingredient for an offence under Section s 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act is that the alleged act must occur "within public view." The learned counsel asserts that the FIR does not disclose that the alleged words were spoken in the presence of any member of the public. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law.

SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT AND APP FOR THE RESPONDENT-STATE:-

4. The learned counsel for the respondent-complainant and the learned APP for the Respondent-State have opposed the petition. They submit that the FIR discloses a prima facie cognizable offence and that the allegations are a matter for trial. It is argued that at the stage of quashing, the court should not delve into a detailed examination of the evidence. They contend that the investigation has been conducted, and a charge sheet has been filed, which indicates that there is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:-

5. Having considered the submissions of all parties and the material on record, this Court finds merit in the petitioner's arguments for quashing the FIR in relation to the offences under the Atrocities Act.

5.1. As previously noted, the petition concerning the IPC offences has already been disposed of as not pressed. The remaining issue is the tenability of the charges under Section s 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)

(va) of the Atrocities Act.

5.2. For an offence to be constituted under Section s 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act, two essential ingredients must be met: first, the intentional insult or abuse by caste name, and second, that the act occurred "in any place within public view." The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the term "within public view" requires that the alleged insult must have been witnessed by members of the public at the time of its occurrence. An incident occurring within the four corners of a building, without the presence of the public, does not satisfy this requirement.

5.3. In