# HITESH VERMA v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR

- **Citation:** [2020] 9 S.C.R. 593
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-11-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 2020
- **Bench:** L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, Ajay Rastogi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/hitesh-verma-v-the-state-of-uttarakhand-anr-34877
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 482 - Petition under - For quashing charges u/ss. 452,
504 and 506 IPC and u/ss. 3(1)(x) (Substituted as 3(1)(r) by Act
No. 1 of 2016) and 3(1)(e) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Dismissed by High Court
- Appeal to Supreme Court - Held: Offences under the Act not
established - Hence the charges under the Act, quashed - Charges
under IPC to be tried by competent Court.
s. 482 - Quashing of charge-sheet in part - Held: There is no
prohibition under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in part.
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989:
s.3(1)(x) (substituted as 3(1)(r) by Act No. 1 of 2016) -
Applicability of - Held: Basic ingredients of the offence u/s. 3(1)(r)
are that there is intentional insult or intimidation with intent to
humiliate a member of SC or ST and that such insult or intimidation
should have taken place at any place within public view - All the
insults and intimidations will not come within purview of the offence
under the Act - In the facts of the present case, the Act is not
applicable.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted to improve
the social economic conditions of the vulnerable sections of the
society as they have been subjected to various offences such as
indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have been
deprived of life and property as well. The object of the Act is thus
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 593
593
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations and
harassment and commit the offence as defined under Section 3 of
the Act. The Act is thus intended to punish the acts of the upper
caste against the vulnerable section of the society for the reason
that they belong to a particular community. [Para 10][600-D-E]
1.2 The charge-sheet filed in the present case was for an
offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section stands
substituted by Act No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016. The substituted
corresponding provision is Section 3(1)(r). The basic ingredients
of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as
"1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any
place within public view". [Paras 11 and 12][600-E, G]
1.3 The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would
indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with
an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not
be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is
on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe. [Para 13][600-G-H; 601-A]
1.4 An offence under the Act would be made out when a
member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to
indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title
over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the
indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right
to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the
appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the
civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction
of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in
accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is
not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled
Caste. [Para 13][601-A-C]
1.5 Therefore, offence under the Act is not established
merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled
Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
595
belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are
litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hu

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
593
HITESH VERMA
v.
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 2020)
NOVEMBER 05, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 482 - Petition under - For quashing charges u/ss. 452,
504 and 506 IPC and u/ss. 3(1)(x) (Substituted as 3(1)(r) by Act
No. 1 of 2016) and 3(1)(e) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Dismissed by High Court
- Appeal to Supreme Court - Held: Offences under the Act not
established - Hence the charges under the Act, quashed - Charges
under IPC to be tried by competent Court.
s. 482 - Quashing of charge-sheet in part - Held: There is no
prohibition under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in part.
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989:
s.3(1)(x) (substituted as 3(1)(r) by Act No. 1 of 2016) -
Applicability of - Held: Basic ingredients of the offence u/s. 3(1)(r)
are that there is intentional insult or intimidation with intent to
humiliate a member of SC or ST and that such insult or intimidation
should have taken place at any place within public view - All the
insults and intimidations will not come within purview of the offence
under the Act - In the facts of the present case, the Act is not
applicable.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted to improve
the social economic conditions of the vulnerable sections of the
society as they have been subjected to various offences such as
indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have been
deprived of life and property as well. The object of the Act is thus
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 593
593
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations and
harassment and commit the offence as defined under Section 3 of
the Act. The Act is thus intended to punish the acts of the upper
caste against the vulnerable section of the society for the reason
that they belong to a particular community. [Para 10][600-D-E]
1.2 The charge-sheet filed in the present case was for an
offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section stands
substituted by Act No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016. The substituted
corresponding provision is Section 3(1)(r). The basic ingredients
of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as
"1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any
place within public view". [Paras 11 and 12][600-E, G]
1.3 The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would
indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with
an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not
be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is
on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe. [Para 13][600-G-H; 601-A]
1.4 An offence under the Act would be made out when a
member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to
indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title
over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the
indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right
to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the
appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the
civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction
of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in
accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is
not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled
Caste. [Para 13][601-A-C]
1.5 Therefore, offence under the Act is not established
merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled
Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
595
belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are
litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of
abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If
such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under
Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out. [Para 18][603-D]
Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) SCC
OnLine SC 1104; Gerige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra
Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 531 : [2008] 12 SCR
623 - relied on.
Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of Maharashtra
& Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 789 : [2009] 2 SCR 382 -
distinguished.
1.6 Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or
intimidation in "any place within public view". In the present case,
the offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of
the building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any
member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time
of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that
the words were uttered "in any place within public view" is not
made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet,
certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those
were the persons present within the four walls of the building.
Therefore, it cannot be said to be a place within public view as
none was said to be present within the four walls of the building
as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet. [Paras 14 and 15][601-D;
602-C-E]
Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel
& Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 435 : [2008] 12 SCR 132 -
relied on.
2.1 If there is a false and unsubstantiated FIR, the
proceedings under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked. [Para
19][603-F]
Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. (2018) 6 SCC 454 : [2018] 4 SCR
877; Union of India v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(2020) 4 SCC 761 : [2019] 12 SCR 1125 -
referred to.
HITESH VERMA v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors. (2020)
4 SCC 727 - relied on.
2.2 There is no prohibition under the law for quashing the
charge-sheet in part. In a petition filed under Section 482
Cr. P.C, the High Court is required to examine as to whether its
intervention is required for prevention of abuse of process of law
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In view of the facts of
the case, the charges against the appellant under Section 3(1)(r)
of the Act are not made out. Consequently, the charge-sheet to
that extent is quashed. The FIR in respect of other offences will
be tried by the competent Court. [Paras 23, 24 and 25][605-C-D;
606-A-B]
Ishwar Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
& Anr. (2018) 13 SCC 612 : [2017] 11 SCR 145 -
relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2008] 12 SCR 132
relied on
Para 14
[2018] 4 SCR 877
relied on
Para 19
[2019] 12 SCR 1125
relied on
Para 19
(2020) 4 SCC 727
relied on
Para 20
[2008] 12 SCR 623
relied on
Para 21
[2009] 2 SCR 382
distinguished
Para 21
[2017] 11 SCR 145
relied on
Para 23
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
707 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2020 of the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Misc. Application No. 507 of
2020.
Ayush Negi, Ms. Manini Roy, Atul Sharma, Rahul Sharma, Kapil
Pant, Advs. for the appearing parties.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
597
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the
High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital on 20.7.2020 whereby the petition
filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19731 for quashing the charge-sheet as well as the summoning
order dated 25.6.2020 was dismissed.
2. The FIR No. 173 in question was lodged by the respondent No.
2 on 11.12.2019 at 23:24 hours in respect of an incident alleged to have
occurred on 10.12.2019 at 10:00 hours against the appellants and others.
The FIR was lodged for the offences under Sections 452, 504, 506 IPC
and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(e) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19892. The said FIR, when
translated, reads as under:
"Respected SHO with respect of registering of FIR, the
complainant is presently resident of Gram New Bajeti Patti
Chandak Tehsil & District Pithoragarh. I am constructing my house
on my Khet No. 6195, 6196 & 6199 but Banshilal, Pyarelal S/o
Late Har Lal, Hitesh Verma S/o Sh. Pyarelal, Pawan Verma S/o
Banshilal, Uma Verma w/o Pyarelal and their Nepali Domestic
help Raju from past 6 months are not allowing the applicant to
work on her fields. All the above persons used to abuse the
applicant her husband and other family members and use to give
death threats and use Caste coloured abuses. On 10.12.2019 at
around 10 am, all these persons entered illegally in to four walls of
her building and started hurling abuses on myself and my labourers
and gave death threats and used castes' remarks/abuses and took
away the construction material such as Cement, Iron, Rod, Bricks.
The Applicant is a Scheduled Caste and all of the above person
uses castes' remarks/abuses (used bad language) and said that
you are persons of bad caste and that we will not let you live in
this mohalla/vicinity. Respect Sir, the applicant and her family has
threat to her life from such persons. Thus, it is requested that an
FIR may be lodged against such persons and necessary action
may be taken against them....."
1 For short, the 'Code'
2 For short, "the Act".
HITESH VERMA v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
3. Pursuant to the FIR filed by Respondent No. 2, Police filed a
report disclosing offences under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section
3(1)(x) of the Act, cognizance for the same was taken by the Trial Court
on 25.6.2020. It is the said order which was challenged along with the
charge-sheet before the High Court, which was unsuccessful.
4. On the other hand, on the basis of the statement of Mr. Pawan
Verma, an FIR No. 174 at about 23:47 hours was lodged on 11.12.2019
in respect of an occurrence which had taken place allegedly at 9:45
hours on 11.12.2019. A charge-sheet in the said matter has been submitted
against respondent No. 2 and others. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pithoragarh had taken cognizance for the offences under
Sections 323 and 354 IPC against respondent No. 2 and others on
2.7.2020.
5. The Appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court by
way of a petition under Section 482 of the Code to challenge the chargesheet and the order taking cognizance. The Appellant relied upon Gerige
Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.3 wherein the allegation
was of abusing the complainant in the name of their caste and this Court
quashed the complaint. The attention of the High Court was drawn to
another judgment reported as Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State
of Maharashtra & Ors.4 wherein this Court refused to quash the FIR
on the ground that the caste of the accused was not mentioned in the
first information report. The High Court found that both the
abovementioned cases dealt with the same issue with regard to
applicability of the provisions of the Act. It was observed by the High
Court that the appellant had categorically admitted that the informant
belonged to Scheduled Caste and that she and her labourers were abused.
Therefore, the provisions of the Act were found to be applicable and
accordingly, after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted. The
High Court dismissed the petition with the aforesaid findings.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the disputes
relating to the property are pending before the Civil Court and that, the
present FIR has been filed on patently false grounds by respondent No.
2 only to harass the appellant and to abuse the process of law. It is
argued that the allegations levelled in the FIR and the subsequent report
submitted by the Police after investigations does not disclose any offence
3 (2008) 12 SCC 531
4 (2009) 3 SCC 789
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
599
under the Act. Furthermore, it is argued that the report neither discloses
the caste of the informant nor the allegations are that they were made in
public view. Also, the offending words are not purported to be made for
the reason that the informant is a person belonging to Scheduled Caste.
7. The learned counsel for the State on the contrary, submitted
that during investigations, certain persons have supported the version of
the informant. It is argued on behalf of respondent No. 2 that in fact the
appellant and his family are encroacher on the informant's land. Therefore,
the appellant was rightly not granted any indulgence by the High Court.
8. Against the backdrop of these facts, it is pertinent to refer to
the Statement of Objects and Reasons of enactment of the Act. It is
provided as under:
"Despite various measures to improve the socio-economic
conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, they
remain vulnerable. They are denied number of civil rights. They
are subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations and
harassment. They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprived
of their life and property. Serious crimes are committed against
them for various historical, social and economic reasons.
2. Because of the awareness created amongst the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes through spread of education,
etc., they are trying to assert their rights and this is not being
taken very kindly by the others. When they assert their rights and
resist practices of untouchability against them or demand statutory
minimum wages or refuse to do any bonded and forced labour,
the vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise them.
When the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes try to
preserve their self-respect or honour of their women, they become
irritants for the dominant and the mighty. Occupation and
cultivation of even the Government allotted land by the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is resented and more often these
people become victims of attacks by the vested interests. Of late,
there has bene an increase in the disturbing trend of commission
of certain atrocities like making the Scheduled Caste persons eat
inedible substances like human excreta and attacks on and mass
killings of helpless Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
and rape of women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the
HITESH VERMA v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
Scheduled Tribes. Under the circumstances, the existing laws like
the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the normal provisions
of the Indian Penal Code have been found to be inadequate to
check these crimes. A special Legislation to check and deter crimes
against them committed by non-Scheduled Castes and nonScheduled Tribes has, therefore, become necessary."
9. The long title of the Act is to prevent the commission of offences
of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes, to provide for Special Courts and Exclusive Special
Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation
of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto.
10. The Act was enacted to improve the social economic conditions
of the vulnerable sections of the society as they have been subjected to
various offences such as indignities, humiliations and harassment. They
have been deprived of life and property as well. The object of the Act is
thus to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations and
harassment and commit the offence as defined under Section 3 of the
Act. The Act is thus intended to punish the acts of the upper caste
against the vulnerable section of the society for the reason that they
belong to a particular community.
11. It may be stated that the charge-sheet filed is for an offence
under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section stands substituted by
Act No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016. The substituted corresponding
provision is Section 3(1)(r) which reads as under:
"3(1)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate
a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place
within public view;"
12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of
the Act can be classified as "1) intentionally insults or intimidates with
intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe
and 2) in any place within public view".
13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate
the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate
a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or
intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless
such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
601
Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socioeconomic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act
would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the
Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The
assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either
the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to
avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant
or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that
respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the
parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure
established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent
No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste.
14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation
in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in
public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the
judgment reported as Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing
Counsel & Ors.5. The Court had drawn distinction between the
expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was
held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn
outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or
lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place
within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a
building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives
or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public
view. The Court held as under:
"28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first
informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a
"chamar") when he stood near the car which was parked at the
gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place
within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place
within public view. It could have been a different matter had the
alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was
not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside
the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be
seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall,
the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also,
5 (2008) 8 SCC 435
HITESH VERMA v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members
of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it
would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must,
therefore, not confuse the expression "place within public view"
with the expression "public place". A place can be a private place
but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place
would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the
Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha
or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or
private bodies."
15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were
within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant
that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends)
at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient
that the words were uttered "in any place within public view" is not
made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain
witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons
present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to
have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view
of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh, it cannot be said to be a
place within public view as none was said to be present within the four
walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet.
16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is
the subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per respondent
No.2 herself. Due to dispute, appellant and others were not permitting
respondent No.2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the
matter is regarding possession of property pending before the Civil Court,
any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would
not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimated
or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe.
17. In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh v. State of
Madhya Pradesh6, this Court held that in a case for applicability of
Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the deceased belonged to
Scheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhanced punishment.
This Court held that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was
6 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
603
committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged to
Scheduled Caste. The Court held as under:
"15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so
as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The
offence must have been committed against the person on the
ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the deceased
was belonging to "Khangar"-Scheduled Caste is not disputed.
There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed
only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled
Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused under
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable."
18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on
the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there
is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present
case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation
of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property.
If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under
Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.
19. This Court in a judgment reported as Dr. Subhash Kashinath
Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.7 issued certain directions in
respect of investigations required to be conducted under the Act. In a
review filed by the Union against the said judgment, this Court in a
judgment reported as Union of India v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.8
reviewed the directions issued by this Court and held that if there is a
false and unsubstantiated FIR, the proceedings under Section 482 of the
Code can be invoked. The Court held as under:
"52. There is no presumption that the members of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes may misuse the provisions of law as
a class and it is not resorted to by the members of the upper
castes or the members of the elite class. For lodging a false report,
it cannot be said that the caste of a person is the cause. It is due
to the human failing and not due to the caste factor. Caste is not
7 (2018) 6 SCC 454
8 (2020) 4 SCC 761
HITESH VERMA v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
attributable to such an act. On the other hand, members of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes due to backwardness
hardly muster the courage to lodge even a first information report,
much less, a false one. In case it is found to be false/
unsubstantiated, it may be due to the faulty investigation or for
other various reasons including human failings irrespective of caste
factor. There may be certain cases which may be false that can
be a ground for interference by the Court, but the law cannot be
changed due to such misuse. In such a situation, it can be taken
care of in proceeding under Section 482 CrPC."
20. Later, while examining the constitutionality of the provisions
of the Amending Act (Central Act No. 27 of 2018), this Court in a
judgment reported as Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors.9
held that proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code. It
was held as under:
"12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under
Section 482 CrPC for quashing the cases to prevent misuse of
provisions on settled parameters, as already observed while deciding
the review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no argument
to the contrary has been raised."
21. In Gerige Pentaiah, one of the arguments raised was nondisclosure of the caste of the accused but the facts were almost similar
as there was civil dispute between parties pending and the allegation
was that the accused has called abuses in the name of the caste of the
victim. The High Court herein has misread the judgment of this Court in
Ashabai Machindra Adhagale as it was not a case about the caste of
the victim but the fact that the accused was belonging to upper caste
was not mentioned in the FIR. The High Court of Bombay had quashed
the proceedings for the reason that the caste of the accused was not
mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of
the Act is not made out. In an appeal against the decision of the Bombay
High Court, this Court held that this will be the matter of investigation as
to whether the accused either belongs to or does not belong to Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the High Court erred in law to
dismiss the quashing petition relying upon later larger Bench judgment.
9 (2020) 4 SCC 727
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
605
22. The appellant had sought quashing of the charge-sheet on the
ground that the allegation does not make out an offence under the Act
against the appellant merely because respondent No. 2 was a Scheduled
Caste since the property dispute was not on account of the fact that
respondent No. 2 was a Scheduled Caste. The property disputes between
a vulnerable section of the society and a person of upper caste will not
disclose any offence under the Act unless, the allegations are on account
of the victim being a Scheduled Caste.Still further, the finding that the
appellant was aware of the caste of the informant is wholly
inconsequential as the knowledge does not bar, any person to protect his
rights by way of a procedure established by law.
23. This Court in a judgment reported as Ishwar Pratap Singh
& Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.10 held that there is no prohibition
under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in part. In a petition filed
under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court is required to examine as
to whether its intervention is required for prevention of abuse of process
of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court held as
under:
"9. Having regard to the settled legal position on external
interference in investigation and the specific facts of this case,
we are of the view that the High Court ought to have exercised
its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice.
There is no prohibition under law for quashing a charge-sheet in
part. A person may be accused of several offences under different
penal statutes, as in the instant case. He could be aggrieved of
prosecution only on a particular charge or charges, on any ground
available to him in law. Under Section 482, all that the High Court
is required to examine is whether its intervention is required for
implementing orders under the Criminal Procedure Code or for
prevention of abuse of process, or otherwise to secure the ends
of justice. A charge-sheet filed at the dictate of somebody other
than the police would amount to abuse of the process of law and
hence the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent powers
under Section 482 to the extent of the abuse. There is no
requirement that the charge-sheet has to be quashed as a whole
and not in part. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The
10 (2018) 13 SCC 612
HITESH VERMA v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
supplementary report filed by the police, at the direction of the
Commission, is quashed."
24. In view of the above facts, we find that the charges against
the appellant under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are not made out.
Consequently, the charge-sheet to that extent is quashed. The appeal is
disposed of in the above terms.
25. The FIR in respect of other offences will be tried by the
competent Court in accordance with law along with the criminal case11,
though separately initiated, for the reason that it relates to interparty
dispute and is in respect of same subject matter of property, despite of
the fact that two different dates of the incident have been provided by
the parties.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeal disposed of.
11 FIR No. 174 of 2019