LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in cases of property disputes where caste-based insults are alleged.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Hitesh Verma vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
[Judgment Date]: 5 November 2020
Date of the Judgment: 5 November 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 818
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, Ajay Rastogi, JJ. (Majority Opinion by Hemant Gupta, J.)
Can a property dispute between individuals lead to charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, if caste-based insults are alleged? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a property dispute where one party, belonging to a Scheduled Caste, claimed to have been abused and harassed by the other party. The Court clarified that the Act is not applicable in such cases unless the insults are specifically made because of the victim’s caste identity and occur in public view.
Case Background
The case involves a dispute between Hitesh Verma (the appellant) and a Scheduled Caste woman (respondent No. 2) over a piece of land in Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand. Respondent No. 2 alleged that the appellant and his family members had been preventing her from working on her land for six months. She claimed that on December 10, 2019, the appellant and others entered her property, abused her and her laborers, issued death threats, and used casteist slurs. Based on this, she filed an FIR on December 11, 2019, alleging offenses under Sections 452, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(e) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act). Simultaneously, the appellant also filed a counter-FIR against the respondent No. 2.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 6 months prior to 10.12.2019 | Appellant and his family allegedly started preventing Respondent No. 2 from working on her land. |
| 10.12.2019 | Alleged incident of abuse, threats, and casteist slurs by the appellant and others against Respondent No. 2 and her laborers. |
| 11.12.2019 | Respondent No. 2 filed FIR No. 173 at 23:24 hours against the appellant and others. |
| 11.12.2019 | Mr. Pawan Verma filed FIR No. 174 at 23:47 hours against Respondent No. 2 and others. |
| 25.06.2020 | Trial Court took cognizance of offences under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act based on FIR No. 173. |
| 02.07.2020 | Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh took cognizance of offences under Sections 323 and 354 IPC against respondent No. 2 and others based on FIR No. 174. |
| 20.07.2020 | High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed the appellant’s petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the charge-sheet and summoning order. |
| 05.11.2020 | Supreme Court of India allows the appeal and quashes the charge-sheet under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant challenged the charge-sheet and the summoning order before the High Court of Uttarakhand under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the appellant had admitted that the informant belonged to a Scheduled Caste and that she and her laborers were abused. Therefore, the High Court found the provisions of the Act to be applicable. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The core legal issue revolves around Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which states:
“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;”
The Supreme Court also considered the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, which highlights the need to protect Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from indignities, humiliations, and harassment. The Court emphasized that the Act aims to punish acts of the upper caste against vulnerable sections of society specifically because of their caste.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The FIR was filed to harass the appellant and abuse the process of law, as property disputes are pending in civil court.
- The allegations in the FIR and police report do not disclose any offense under the Act.
- The report does not mention the caste of the informant or that the alleged abuses were made in public view.
- The offending words were not spoken because the informant belongs to a Scheduled Caste.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- Witnesses supported the informant’s version during the investigation.
- The appellant and his family are encroachers on the informant’s land.
- The High Court correctly applied the provisions of the Act.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission |
|
| Respondent’s Submission |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:
- Whether the charges under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are made out against the appellant based on the allegations and facts presented.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the charges under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are made out against the appellant? | The Court held that the charges under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are not made out. The Court reasoned that the alleged insults were not made in public view and were not specifically because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Gerige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [ (2008) 12 SCC 531] | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case where a complaint was quashed due to a pending civil dispute and allegations of caste-based abuse. |
| Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2009) 3 SCC 789] | Supreme Court of India | The Court distinguished this case, where the FIR was not quashed because the caste of the accused was not mentioned. |
| Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Ors. [(2008) 8 SCC 435] | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to clarify the meaning of “place within public view,” stating that it does not include a private place even if some members of the public are present. |
| Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104] | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to emphasize that the offense must be committed specifically because the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste. |
| Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [(2018) 6 SCC 454] | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case regarding the directions for investigations under the Act. |
| Union of India v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2020) 4 SCC 761] | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case regarding review of directions in the Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan case and held that proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be invoked if the FIR is false and unsubstantiated. |
| Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors. [(2020) 4 SCC 727] | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to reiterate that proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
| Ishwar Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [(2018) 13 SCC 612] | Supreme Court of India | The Court cited this case to support the view that a charge-sheet can be quashed in part. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | FIR was filed to harass the appellant and abuse the process of law due to pending civil dispute. | The Court agreed that the FIR was filed due to a property dispute and not because the respondent was a Scheduled Caste. |
| Appellant | Allegations do not disclose an offense under the Act. | The Court agreed that the allegations did not meet the requirements of Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. |
| Appellant | The report does not mention the caste of the informant or that the alleged abuses were made in public view. | The Court agreed that the alleged abuses were not made in public view. |
| Appellant | The offending words were not spoken because the informant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. | The Court agreed that there was no intention to humiliate the informant because of her caste. |
| Respondent | Witnesses supported the informant’s version during the investigation. | The Court did not find this relevant to the applicability of Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. |
| Respondent | The appellant and his family are encroachers on the informant’s land. | The Court held that the property dispute is a civil matter and not relevant to the application of the Act. |
| Respondent | The High Court correctly applied the provisions of the Act. | The Court disagreed with the High Court’s interpretation and quashed the charges under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ Gerige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [(2008) 12 SCC 531]*: The Court relied on this case to support the view that the Act is not applicable in cases where the dispute is primarily a civil matter and the caste-based abuse is incidental.
✓ Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2009) 3 SCC 789]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it was not about the caste of the victim but about the caste of the accused, and therefore, it was not relevant to the present case.
✓ Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Ors. [(2008) 8 SCC 435]*: The Court relied on this case to define “place within public view,” emphasizing that it does not include private spaces, even if some members of the public are present.
✓ Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104]*: The Court used this case to highlight that the offense must be committed specifically because the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste.
✓ Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [(2018) 6 SCC 454]*: The Court referred to this case regarding the directions for investigations under the Act.
✓ Union of India v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2020) 4 SCC 761]*: The Court referred to this case regarding review of directions in the Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan case and held that proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be invoked if the FIR is false and unsubstantiated.
✓ Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors. [(2020) 4 SCC 727]*: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
✓ Ishwar Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [(2018) 13 SCC 612]*: The Court cited this case to support the view that a charge-sheet can be quashed in part.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Absence of Public View | 40% |
| Property Dispute | 30% |
| Lack of Caste-Based Intent | 30% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court emphasized that the alleged incident occurred within the four walls of a building, and there was no evidence of any public presence. The Court also noted that the dispute was primarily a property issue, and the alleged caste-based abuses were not the primary reason for the dispute. The Court also considered that the intention to humiliate based on caste was not established.
Issue: Whether the charges under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are made out?
Step 1: Were the alleged insults made in a place within public view?
Step 2: Was the primary reason for the dispute due to the victim’s caste?
Step 3: Was there an intention to humiliate the victim because of their caste?
Conclusion: Charges under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are not made out.
The Court reasoned that the essential ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) of the Act were not satisfied. The Court stated:
“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.”
“Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in “any place within public view”.
“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.”
Key Takeaways
- The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not applicable to property disputes unless the insults are specifically made because of the victim’s caste identity and occur in public view.
- The term “place within public view” does not include private spaces, even if some members of the public are present.
- The intention to humiliate a person because of their caste is a crucial element for the application of the Act.
- Charge-sheets can be quashed in part under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed the charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. However, the Court directed that the trial for the other offenses under the Indian Penal Code would continue in the competent court.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that for an offense to be made out under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the insult or intimidation must occur in a place within public view and must be specifically intended to humiliate the victim because of their caste. This judgment clarifies the scope of the Act and emphasizes that it is not applicable to all cases where a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is involved, especially in cases of property disputes where caste-based insults are incidental. This judgment underscores the need to establish that the act was committed solely because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, and not due to other reasons such as property disputes.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Hitesh Verma vs. The State of Uttarakhand clarifies the applicability of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in property disputes. The Court emphasized that the Act is not intended to resolve property disputes but to protect Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from indignities, humiliations, and harassment specifically because of their caste. The Court quashed the charges under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act against the appellant, as the alleged incident did not occur in public view and was not primarily motivated by caste-based animosity. This judgment sets a precedent that the Act should not be misused to settle personal scores or property disputes.