For offences under S.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act, the alleged caste-based insult must occur “in any place within public view”; absence of this foundational ingredient renders the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings unsustainable.

on

Facts

The dispute arose between family members concerning ancestral properties situated at Hari Nagar and Ramesh Nagar, Delhi. The complainant and accused were close relatives. FIR No. 42 of 2021 was registered at Kirti Nagar Police Station on the complaint of respondent No. 2 alleging that appellant No. 1 abused the complainant by using caste-based slurs such as “chura”, “chamar”, and “harijan”, while other accused threatened him.

The prosecution alleged offences under S.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act against appellant No. 1 and S.506 r/w S.34 IPC against all accused. The trial court framed charges, and the High Court dismissed the revision petition challenging those orders.

Issues Framed
Whether the ingredients of offences under ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act and s. 506 r/w s. 34 IPC were disclosed from the FIR and charge-sheet so as to justify framing of charges.

Court’s Reasoning

(a) The Court extensively examined the statutory requirement that caste-based insult or intimidation must occur “in any place within public view” to constitute offences under ss. 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act. Relying upon Swaran Singh v. State ((2008) 8 SCC 435), Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand ((2020) 10 SCC 710), and Karuppudayar v. State (2025 SCC OnLine SC 215), the Court reiterated that even a private place may qualify only if the public has access to witness the occurrence. (Paras 5.4–5.9).

(b) Examining the FIR, the Court found no allegation that the incident occurred in the presence of members of the public or at a place exposed to “public gaze”. The FIR itself showed that the occurrence took place inside the residential house at Ramesh Nagar shared by family members. The statements of witnesses also did not indicate that they witnessed the alleged abuses. Hence, the indispensable ingredient of occurrence “within public view” was absent. (Paras 6.4–6.7).

(c) The Court observed that vague allegations regarding earlier incidents of abuse over one year were insufficient to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act because no specific incident, date, or public setting was identified.

(d) As regards s. 506 IPC, the Court held that the FIR did not disclose the essential ingredient of “intent to cause alarm”. The allegations were insufficient to constitute criminal intimidation. The Court further held that there was no material showing any common intention among the accused so as to attract s. 34 IPC. (Paras 10–10.2).

(e) Reiterating the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), the Court held that where the FIR, taken at face value, does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

Held
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court and the trial court’s orders framing charges. FIR No. 42 of 2021 and the charge-sheet against the appellants under S.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act and S.506 r/w S.34 IPC were quashed.

Ratio
An offence under ss. 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act is not made out unless the alleged caste-based insult or intimidation occurs “in any place within public view”; absence of this foundational ingredient in the FIR justifies quashing of criminal proceedings.

Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 468
Decided on: 11 May 2026
Case Title: Gunjan @ Girija Kumari and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra