Case title:
Rithesh Pais Vs. State of Karnataka
Date of Order:
10th June 2022
Bench:
Hon’ble Justice M Nagaprasanna
Parties:
Petitioner- Sri Rithesh Pais
Respondent- State of Karnataka
SUBJECT
The Karnataka High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed proceedings initiated against the accused under provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015holding that alleged abuses hurled by him at the complainant were in the basement of a building which was not a place of public view or a public place.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section 3(1)(r), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015- The section deals with the punishments for offences of atrocities and classifies ‘intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view’ as an offense.
- Section 3(1)(s), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015- This section punishes anyone who abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view.
- Section 504, Indian Penal Code, 1860- This section provides the punishment for an intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace.
- Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860- The section lays down the punishments for the various types of criminal intimidation.
- Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860- The section provides the punishment for the voluntary cause of hurt.
OVERVIEW
- The complainant was working in a newly constructed building in Yelmudi, Puttur. The accused goes there and asks the complainant to stop the work to which the complainant appears to have replied that he is working on the instructions of the owner of the building.
- It is further alleged that in front of two witnesses, the accused addressed the complainant by derogatorily taking the name of his caste, threatening his life and obstructing his construction activity.
- Based upon this incident, a complaint was registered by the complainant against the accused alleging he hurled abuses taking the name of his caste, which would be an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015
- The filingof the charge sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under the aforementioned provisions of the Act and Sections 504,506 and 323 of the IPC in Special Case No.5023 of 2021 is what drove him to this court in the present petition.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether hurling abuses, not in public view is an offense as per the provisions of Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- It was submitted by the petitioner that the complainant was an employee of Sri Jayakumar R. Nair against whom the petitioner had previously instituted a civil suit and an order of injunction over a property dispute. Therefore, it is alleged that the employer set up his employee to settle his personal scores or wreakvengeance against the petitioner for instituting the suit.
- It was contended that the hurling of abuses neither occurred in a public place nor a place of public view.It was admittedly hurled in the basement of the building where no passerby was present. Hence it could not be classified as an offense under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
- It was further submitted that the witnesses who observed the alleged offense were all coworkers of the complainant and could not be classified as the public.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The respondent along with the State in unison contended that the abuses were admittedly hurled in front of multiple witnesses, and the said act is also said to have been seen by other public.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The court opined that it was unmistakable that the hurling of abuses happened in the basement where the complainant and employees were working and, in the basement, it is not indicated that any other person was present.
- Two factors would emerge from a reading of the aforesaid statements – one being the basement of the building was not a place of public view and two, only persons who claim to be present were the complainant and the other employees of Sri Jayakumjar R.Nair or friends of the complainant. Therefore, hurling of abuses was clearly not in a place of public view or a public place for the aforesaid provisions of the Act to be get attracted in the case at hand.
- The court placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand [(2020) 10 SCC 710], in which it was held that 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”.
- With regards to the other offences under sections 504, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, the bench stated that for an offence to be punishable under Section 323 IPC, there should be hurt caused in the squabble. A perusal of the records revealed that the wound certificate showed a simple scratch mark on the forearm and another scratch mark on the chest. Bleeding was not indicated. Therefore, it could not become an offence under Section 323 of IPC.
- Insofar as Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC are concerned, the court stated that they are clearly an offshoot of the allegations made under the Act. Therefore, none of the offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) or Section 3(2)(va) could be driven home in the case at hand as they were all shrouded with the act of the employer seeking to wreak vengeance against the petitioner for having registered the suit. Therefore, none of the offences alleged was sustainable in the facts of the case at hand.
- Finally, the court stated that since the basic ingredients of the offense are missing, permitting the proceeding to continue and compelling the petitioner to face a criminal trial would be an unjustified abuse of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
CONCLUSION
The criminal petition was allowed and the proceedings for offenses punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), (s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 pending before the magistrate court stands quashed.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
