To attract offences 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; abuses hurled within the four walls of a house do not meet this criterion.

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Special Case No.655 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A , 504 r/w 34 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“Act” for short).

2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

The petitioner who appears in person is the accused; the 2nd respondent, the complainant, his wife. The two get married on 11-10-2017 at Hyderabad. The relationship between the two appears to have floundered and on floundering of the relationship or lurking squabble between the two, leads the petitioner initially to register a complaint before the jurisdictional police at Hyderabad, which becomes a crime in Crime No.246 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 324, 307, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC. After registration of the complaint or contemporaneously, the complainant also institutes the proceedings seeking annulment of marriage with the petitioner before the Family Court in M.C.No.86 of 2023. The aforesaid two proceedings are pending before the concerned Courts. On 25-11-2022 comes the impugned complaint before the jurisdictional police at Bangalore, alleging harassment on demand of dowry and hurling of abuses, which was allegedly for the aforesaid offences. This becomes a crime in Crime No.382 of 2022. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The concerned Court then registers Special Case No.655 of 2023 for the aforementioned offences. It is the filing of the charge sheet that drives the husband- petitioner in person before this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri Manikiran G.C., petitioner appearing in person, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt Udita Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4. The petitioner, appearing in person, would vehemently contend that the averments of the complaint do not make out any of the ingredients that are necessary to drive home the offences so alleged. It is his submission that the complainant never showed any interest in marriage and was in the habit of running away. He had to himself register a crime on the alleged act of the complainant trying to stab the husband, the petitioner. He would further contend that there is unexplained delay in filing of the complaint and the allegations are vague and are not specific and would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ACHIN GUPTA v. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (2025) 3 SCC 756 to buttress his submission that the husband is drawn into the web of proceeding on frivolous allegations. He would submit that his case is pari materia to what the Apex Court has considered in ACHIN GUPTA.

5. Contrariwise, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant would vehemently refute the submissions of the petitioner in person contending that the averments made in the complaint by the complainant requires evidence in the least. Mere statements of the husband that there is no demand of dowry cannot be assessed in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Prima facie, the complaint discloses material or specific overt acts against the petitioner. The crime registered by the petitioner against the complainant is also pending consideration at the hands of the jurisdictiona