LI Network
Published on: December 24, 2023 at 14:23 IST
The Allahabad High Court recently delivered a verdict asserting that verbal abuse involving the utterance of caste names within a household, where no outsiders are present, does not qualify as an offense under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
The ruling came in response to an educationist’s plea challenging criminal proceedings initiated against him for allegedly verbally abusing a student’s father with his caste name.
Justice Shamim Ahmed clarified that an individual can only be tried for an offense under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act if the caste-related utterances occurred in a “place within public view.”
The case involved a school owner accused by a parent of academic misconduct regarding his son and other Class XII students.
The complainant alleged that the accused and associates offered him ₹5 lakh to quell his protest against the students’ exam results. The accused was also accused of caste-based verbal abuse and threats during a visit to the complainant’s house.
However, Justice Ahmed concluded that the accused had not used caste names in a place within public view. Additionally, the court noted the absence of details about the nature of the alleged abuses, leading to the conclusion that the allegations did not constitute an offense under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
The Court emphasized that offenses under the SC/ST Act require the vulnerable sections of society to face indignities, humiliations, and harassment in places within public view.
Independent witnesses did not support the complainant’s case, and the alleged incident occurred inside the complainant’s house, away from public view.
Examining the case, the court highlighted the central role of the Central Board of School Education (CBSE) in handling student results, absolving the accused (school owner) of responsibility.
The Court criticized the magistrate for not applying judicial scrutiny while taking cognizance and summoning the accused based solely on the chargesheet contents.
Addressing other allegations, the court questioned the invocation of Section 143 (unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code, asserting that there was no formation of an unlawful assembly as the incident occurred within the complainant’s house.
Regarding criminal intimidation charges, the Court found the complainant’s story implausible and the absence of independent witnesses supporting the case, leading to the conclusion that Section 506 I.P.C. was not applicable.
Consequently, the Court quashed the cognizance and summoning orders, dismissing the entire case and related criminal proceedings against the accused.
