The Rajasthan High Court clarified that for an offence under the SC/ST Act, the insult or intimidation must occur publicly, witnessed by others. The court quashed previous cognizance orders, noting the absence of evidence for a public incident in the case filed by Prithvi Ram against Chhinder Singh, undermining the charges.
Rajasthan: The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that for an offence to be recognized under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the act of insult or intimidation must take place in a public setting, witnessed by others. This ruling was made by Justice Arun Monga, who set aside the trial court and Special Judge’s cognizance order in the case.
The judgment reinforces the requirement for the presence of others in determining whether such an offence qualifies under the Act, highlighting the need for public occurrence of the alleged atrocity.
The court noted,
“Both learned Courts failed to notice that Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act requires that the insult or intimidation be made in the presence of others at a public place. In the case in hand, the complainant visited the petitioner at a location that was not a public place, and there is no evidence that the petitioner’s remarks were made in public. Thus, without such preliminary evidence, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is not substantiated.”
The case originated from a complaint filed by Prithvi Ram on January 10, 2013, accusing Chhinder Singh of making caste-based derogatory remarks. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Sriganganagar, forwarded the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), leading to the registration of an FIR. After investigating, the police submitted a negative final report, concluding that there were no grounds for prosecution.
Read Also: Rajasthan High Court Rejects PIL for Live Streaming Court Proceedings
Dissatisfied, the complainant filed a protest petition, following which the trial court took cognizance of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on June 22, 2013.
Chhinder Singh, represented by Advocate R.S. Choudhary, challenged the cognizance order by filing a revision petition before the Special SC/ST Court. However, on September 23, 2013, the Special Judge upheld the trial court’s decision. This led to Singh’s petition before the Rajasthan High Court.
Singh’s counsel argued that the trial court erred in taking cognizance, given that the police investigation resulted in a negative final report, which did not substantiate the allegations. Key witnesses had not confirmed Singh’s presence at the scene, nor did they witness any caste-based remarks made in a public setting, a critical requirement under the SC/ST Act.
Furthermore, the complainant himself denied the presence of any witnesses during the alleged incident.
In opposition, Public Prosecutor Sonu Manawat contended that the complainant’s testimony was sufficient to justify the cognizance order. The prosecution alleged that the remarks made by Singh were abusive and derogatory, thereby supporting the charges under the SC/ST Act.
Read Also: Prevention of Child Marriage in Rajasthan, HC Issued Directives
The High Court observed that neither the original complaint nor the police investigation supported the claim that the derogatory remarks were made in a public setting. The FIR indicated that the complainant had personally visited Singh, during which caste-based remarks were allegedly made, but not in a public context. The court also noted that witnesses later testified they were not present during the incident.
The court criticized the lower courts for taking cognizance without addressing the negative final report filed by the police. Citing the ruling in Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, the court emphasized that the Magistrate must provide reasons for disregarding the negative report before proceeding.
As a result, the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the orders of the ACJM and Special Court, stating that,
“taking cognizance of this case against the petitioner, as ordered on June 22, 2013, is an abuse of the legal process.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
