Supreme Court Upholds Magistrate’s Order in Caste Atrocity Case: Priti Agarwalla vs. State of GNCT of Delhi (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 17 May 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 437
Judges: M.M. Sundresh, J. and S.V.N. Bhatti, J.

Can a complaint be filed under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, based on allegations of casteist slurs not made in public view? The Supreme Court recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a dispute at an equestrian academy. The core issue revolved around whether the alleged derogatory remarks and actions against a member of the Scheduled Caste community, made within the premises of a private training facility, constituted an offense under the Act. The bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The Olympic Riding and Equestrian Academy (OREA) in New Delhi is a training facility for equestrian athletes. The case involves several trainee athletes, their parents, and the academy’s administrator. The dispute arose from complaints and counter-complaints between the parties, escalating to allegations of caste-based discrimination.

The complainant, a member of the Scheduled Caste community and a trainee at OREA, alleged that he was subjected to casteist slurs and humiliation by other trainees and their parents. These incidents allegedly occurred over a period of two years. The complainant also mentioned a WhatsApp group where the accused allegedly planned to harm him.

The series of complaints and counter-complaints started when on 03.04.2018, Appellant No. 4 filed a complaint against the administrator of OREA. Following this, the administrator filed an application for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed on 11.04.2018. Subsequently, Appellant No. 1 and her husband filed a complaint against the administrator on 12.04.2018, alleging ill-treatment of their son. On 14.04.2018 and 15.04.2018, Appellants Nos. 3, 4, and 6 filed complaints against the administrator alleging sexual harassment, cheating, and cruelty to animals. A WhatsApp group named “Alliance” was created by Appellant No. 6, which included Appellants Nos. 2 and 3, and another trainee, Daksh Mittal. Daksh Mittal informed the administrator about the group’s plans to harm him and the complainant. On 22.04.2018, the administrator filed a complaint for protection. On 28.04.2018, Appellants Nos. 3, 5, and 6, along with police and animal husbandry officers, visited OREA. On 29.04.2018, the complainant filed a complaint under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate referred the complaint to the SHO, P.S. Fatehpur Beri. The Additional Sessions Judge, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi, upheld the Action Taken Report and dismissed the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Additional Sessions Judge stated that the inquiry was conducted by the designated officer and that the interrogation was proper. The court also noted that the prayer clause was restricted to the registration of an FIR and did not include treating the complaint as one under Section 200 of the CrPC.

Aggrieved by this order, the complainant filed a Criminal Appeal before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court allowed the appeal, directing the SHO to register an FIR and conduct an investigation. The High Court also directed the prosecution of the SHO for failing to perform his duties under the Act of 1989. The present appeal before the Supreme Court is against this order of the High Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, specifically Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s). These sections deal with offenses related to intentional insults and abuses against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Section 3(1)(r) of the Act of 1989: This section penalizes “intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.”

Section 3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989: This section penalizes “abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view.”

The Supreme Court also considered Section 156(3) of the CrPC, which deals with the power of a Magistrate to order an investigation.

The Court also discussed the importance of the “public view” requirement in these sections, emphasizing that the insults or abuses must occur in a place where they are visible to the public.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The complaints were motivated and filed after the Appellants filed complaints against the administrator of OREA.
• The complaints did not disclose any offense under the Act of 1989, as the alleged incidents did not occur in “public view.”
• The allegations were vague and indefinite.
• The Magistrate is required to apply judicial discretion and not act mechanically when directing the registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
• The WhatsApp conversation did not constitute an offense under the Act of 1989.
• The word ‘faggot’ is a slur against a male homosexual but not a casteist slur.

Arguments by the Respondent:

• The complaints disclosed cognizable offenses under the Act of 1989.
• The police failed to act on the complaint, necessitating the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
• The delay in filing the complaint was due to the complainant’s background and fear.
• The utterances made at OREA, even if a private training facility, satisfy the “public view” requirement.
• The WhatsApp chat was in the public domain, with Daksh Mittal being a third party aware of the slurs.

Innovativeness of the argument: The respondent argued that the WhatsApp chat was in the public domain because a third party (Daksh Mittal) was aware of it, which is an innovative argument to try to satisfy the requirement of public view.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for its decision:

1. Whether the order dated 09.07.2018 of the Metropolitan Magistrate conforms to the material on record and satisfies the mandate of Section 156(3) of the CrPC?
2. Whether the complaints dated 29.04.2018/09.05.2018 make out a prima facie case of an offense under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989?
3. Whether the impugned order is valid, legal, and tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Legal Provisions:

• Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Defines offenses related to intentional insults and abuses against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Grants power to a Magistrate to order an investigation.
• Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Deals with punishment for neglect of duties by a public servant.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Kokkanda B. Poondacha & Ors. v. K.D. Ganapathi & Anr. [2011] 12 SCC 600: The Court referred to the principles of utmost good faith and integrity required of an advocate but did not decide on the objection raised by the Counsel for the Appellants.
• Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. [2020] 10 SCC 710, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [2019] 9 SCC 608, State v. Om Prakash Rana & Ors. [2013] SCC OnLine Delhi 5107, Kusum Lata v. State & Ors. [2016] SCC OnLine Del 1379, Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State & Anr. [2008] 8 SCC 435: The Court relied on these cases to emphasize the importance of the “public view” requirement in the Act of 1989.
• Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [2015] 6 SCC 439, Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri [2023] SCC OnLine SC 569: The Court relied on these cases to emphasize that the Magistrate must apply judicial discretion under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
• Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2015] 6 SCC 287, Khalid Khan & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr. [2023] SCC OnLine All 2277: The Court relied on these cases to explain the Magistrate’s power to verify the truth of allegations under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
• Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. [2023] SCC OnLine SC 90: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that a petition under Section 156(3), CrPC must satisfy essential ingredients to attract the alleged offenses.
• Daya Bhatnagar & Ors. v. State [2004] SCC OnLine Del 33: The Court relied on this case to explain the interpretation of “public view” in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
• Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [2016] SCC OnLine Bom 15947: The Court relied on this case to explain that messages sent on WhatsApp cannot be said to be an act of intentional insult in public view.
• Union of India v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2020] 4 SCC 761, National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [2017] 2 SCC 432, Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors. [2020] 4 SCC 727: The Court referred to these cases to emphasize the importance of protecting the rights of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. the State of Maharashtra & Anr. AIR 2018 SC 1498: The Court referred to the directions issued by the Court regarding the procedure for registering FIRs under the Act of 1989.
• Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps (1899 AC 99, 105 -106 : 79 LT 473 : 15 TLR 61), South Gujarat Roofing Tiles Manufacturers Association & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [1976] 4 SCC 601, Dadaji alias Dina v. Sukhdeobabu & Ors. [1980] 1 SCC 621: The Court referred to these cases to explain the meaning of the word ‘include’.
• Union of India & Ors. v. VKC Footsteps (India) (P) Ltd. [2022] 2 SCC 603, S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman [1985] 1 SCC 591, Hiralal Rattanlal v. State of U.P. [1973] 1 SCC 216: The Court referred to these cases to explain the principles of interpretation of a proviso.
• Baldev Singh Gandhi v. State of Punjab & Anr. [2002] 3 SCC 667, Noratanmal Chouraria v. M.R. Murli & Anr. [2004] 5 SCC 689: The Court referred to these cases to explain the definition of misconduct.
• Bijender Singh v. State and Anr. [2024] 308 DLT 149: The Court approved the view expressed in this case that the enquiry report is to be sought before the criminal proceedings are initiated and not before the framing of charges.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the alleged casteist slurs and abuses did not occur in “public view” as required under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court emphasized that the “public view” requirement is crucial for an offense to be made out under these sections. The Court also held that the Magistrate had correctly followed the procedure under Section 156(3) of the CrPC by seeking a preliminary inquiry and receiving the Action Taken Report. The High Court’s direction to register an FIR was deemed untenable as the complaints did not disclose a prima facie case under the Act of 1989.

Key Points of the Ratio Decidendi:

• “Public View” Requirement: The Court reiterated that the insults or abuses must occur in a place where they are visible to the public for an offense to be made out under the Act of 1989.
• Magistrate’s Discretion: The Magistrate must apply judicial discretion when directing an investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC and not act mechanically.
• Preliminary Inquiry: The Magistrate was correct in seeking a preliminary inquiry and receiving the Action Taken Report before deciding on the registration of an FIR.
• WhatsApp Messages: The Court held that messages sent on WhatsApp cannot be said to be an act of intentional insult in public view.

Obiter Dicta

The Supreme Court made the following obiter dicta:

• The Court emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• The Court noted that the Magistrate must apply judicial discretion and not act mechanically when directing the registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
• The Court observed that the police officer is required to act in a fair and impartial manner.
• The Court stated that the enquiry under Section 4(2) of the Act of 1989 is to be sought before the criminal proceedings are initiated and not before the framing of charges.
• The Court observed that a petition under Section 156(3) of the CrPC must satisfy essential ingredients to attract the alleged offenses.

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the High Court. The Court upheld the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The Court held that the complaints did not make out a prima facie case of an offense under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as the alleged incidents did not occur in “public view.”

Flowchart of the Case