Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Caste Abuse Case: Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 19th May, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 569
Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Dipankar Datta, J.
Can a verbal altercation, absent specific casteist remarks and public view, constitute an offense under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, ultimately quashing criminal proceedings against an accused. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of “public view” and the necessity of specific caste-based insults for offenses under the SC/ST Act. The bench comprised Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Dipankar Datta.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident on January 14, 2016, where Ramesh Chandra Vaishya (the appellant) and another individual (the complainant) were involved in an altercation over water drainage. The complainant alleged that Vaishya used caste-related slurs and physically assaulted him. Subsequently, a First Information Report (F.I.R.) was filed against Vaishya on January 20, 2016, under sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). Vaishya, on the other hand, claimed that he was assaulted by the complainant and his son, and he was detained when he went to file a complaint. A second F.I.R. was registered on February 18, 2016, based on a Magistrate’s order, against the complainant for various offenses under the IPC. Additionally, a civil suit was filed by Vaishya against the complainant for encroachment on land, which is still pending.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the appellant’s application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the charge-sheet and criminal proceedings. The High Court held that the allegations were factual and required evidence, and that it could not determine if a prima facie case existed at this stage. The High Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Allauddin Khan vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. [(2019) 6 SCC 107], emphasizing the limited jurisdiction of the court at the stage of discharge or under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), which, at the time of the incident, stated:
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities . — (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, —
***
(x) 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 court also considered sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Section 323 of the IPC deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt, while section 504 of the IPC addresses intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. Section 319 of the IPC defines hurt as causing bodily pain, disease, or infirmity to any person.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The first F.I.R. was an afterthought, registered after a delay of six days, raising doubts about the allegations.
• The charge-sheet was filed hastily, without proper investigation, and failed to consider the second F.I.R. and medical report.
• The complainant, being influential, maliciously initiated criminal proceedings to hinder the pending civil dispute.
• The police did not act on the appellant’s complaint, and the second F.I.R. was registered only after a Magistrate’s order.
• The appellant relied on State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] to argue that an F.I.R. lacking a case against the accused and registered with ulterior motives should be quashed.
• The appellant cited Hitesh Verma vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Anr. [(2020) 10 SCC 710] to argue that the High Court ignored the misuse of the SC/ST Act, and that the charge-sheet did not specify the abusive language used to attract section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The appellant committed a serious crime resulting in injuries to the complainant.
• The police filed the charge-sheet after due investigation.
• The High Court rightly dismissed the application for quashing.
• The jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be sparingly exercised.

Complainant’s Submissions:

• The investigation was completed in a day, which is not impossible.
• The charge-sheet has been filed, and the law should take its course.
• If the appellant is aggrieved by the framing of charges, he may seek remedy as per the law.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the alleged caste-related abuses were made “in any place within public view” to attract section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.
2. Whether the criminal proceedings against the appellant should be allowed to continue for offences under sections 323 and 504, IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Mohd. Allauddin Khan vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. [(2019) 6 SCC 107]* The High Court relied on this case to emphasize its limited jurisdiction. The Supreme Court did not disagree with this principle but found that the High Court misapplied it in the present case.
• State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]* The Supreme Court agreed with the principle that an FIR lacking a case against the accused and registered with ulterior motives should be quashed.
• Hitesh Verma vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Anr. [(2020) 10 SCC 710]* The Supreme Court relied on this case to support its view that the charge-sheet did not specify the abusive language used and did not meet the requirements of Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act.
• Fiona Shrikhande and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra [(2013) 14 SCC 44]* The Supreme Court used this case to interpret section 504 of the IPC, emphasizing that mere abuse is not sufficient to warrant a conviction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the absence of key elements necessary to constitute offenses under the SC/ST Act and the IPC. The court emphasized that for an offense under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, the insult or intimidation must occur in public view and must be specifically targeted at the victim because of their caste. The court also noted the lack of proper investigation, particularly the absence of a medical report to substantiate the claim of physical assault and the absence of independent witnesses.

The court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

• The court emphasized that for an offense under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, the insult or intimidation must occur in public view. The court noted that the incident took place at the appellant’s house, and no member of the public was present. “Since the utterances, if any, made by the appellant were not “in any place within public view”, the basic ingredient for attracting section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was missing/absent.”
• The court held that every insult or intimidation does not amount to an offense under the SC/ST Act unless it is specifically targeted at the victim because of their caste. “The legislative intent seems to be clear that every insult or intimidation for humiliation to a person would not amount to an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act unless, of course, such insult or intimidation is targeted at the victim because of he being a member of a particular Scheduled Caste or Tribe.”
• The court found that the charge-sheet did not specify the casteist remarks, making it difficult to ascertain whether an offense under the SC/ST Act was committed. “Even for the limited test that has to be applied in a case of the present nature, the charge-sheet dated 21st January, 2016 does not make out any case of an offence having been committed by the appellant under section 3(1)(x) warranting him to stand a trial.”
• Regarding section 323 of the IPC, the court noted the lack of a medical report and independent witnesses to substantiate the claim of physical assault. The court also noted that the appellant had injuries treated immediately after the incident.
• For section 504 of the IPC, the court held that mere abuse is not sufficient to warrant a conviction. “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, we have little hesitation in holding that even though the appellant might have abused the complainant but such abuse by itself and without anything more does not warrant subjecting the appellant to face a trial, particularly in the clear absence of the ingredient of intentional insult of such a degree that it could provoke a person to break public peace or commit any other offence.”

The court concluded that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of law. The court set aside the High Court’s judgment and quashed the criminal case.

Key Takeaways

• For an offense under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, the insult or intimidation must occur in “public view.”
• The insult or intimidation must be specifically targeted at the victim because of their caste.
• Mere abuse without intent to provoke a breach of peace is not sufficient for an offense under section 504 of the IPC.
• Proper investigation, including medical evidence and independent witnesses, is crucial in cases of physical assault.
• Criminal proceedings can be quashed if they lack sufficient legal basis and are an abuse of the process of law.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for an offense under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, the insult or intimidation must occur in “public view” and must be specifically targeted at the victim because of their caste. This clarifies the interpretation of “public view” and the necessity of specific caste-based insults for offenses under the SC/ST Act. The judgment also reinforces the principle that mere abuse is not sufficient for an offense under section 504 of the IPC, and that proper investigation is necessary for offenses under section 323 of the IPC. This case does not overrule any previous positions of law, but it provides a more nuanced understanding of the application of the SC/ST Act and the IPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs. State of Uttar Pradesh clarifies the essential elements for offenses under the SC/ST Act and the IPC. The court emphasized the need for specific casteist remarks, public view, and proper investigation. By quashing the criminal proceedings, the court ensured that the legal process is not misused for harassment and that the provisions of the law are applied correctly.