LAW FINDER

Submitted By: Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta

PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (SC)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before:-L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 2020 (Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No. 3585 of 2020). D/d. 5.11.2020.
Hitesh Verma - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr. - Respondents
For the Appellant :- Ayush Negi, Advocate.
For the Respondents :- Rahul Sharma, Atul Sharma and Kapil Pant, Advocates.
IMPORTANT
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - In absence of
intention to humiliate member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for reason that
victim belongs to such caste - Offence under Act is not established.
A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(e) - Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 452 , 504 and 506 Atrocities - Quashing of proceedings - All insults or intimidations
to person would not be offence under Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account
of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe - Another key ingredient of
provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view" - Held, Allegations of
abusing informant were within four walls of her building - There was no any member of
public at time of incident in house - Therefore, basic ingredient that words were uttered
"in any place within public view" not made out - Charge-sheet to that extent is quashed.
[Paras 13, 14, 15, 23 and 24]
B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections
3(1)(x) and 3(1)(e) - Enactment - Object - Object of Act is to punish violators who inflict
indignities, humiliations and harassment against the vulnerable section of the society - Act
is thus intended to punish acts of upper caste against vulnerable section of society for
reason that they belong to particular community.
[Para 10]
C. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections
3(1)(x) and 3(1)(e) - Humiliation in name of caste - Offence - Unless there is intention to
humiliate member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for reason that victim belongs to
such caste - Offence under Act is not established merely on fact that informant is member
of Scheduled Caste.
[Para 18]

1/7
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

Cases Referred :-
Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 3 SCC 789.
Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 454.
Gerige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 12 SCC 531.
Ishwar Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 13 SCC 612.
Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104.
Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727.
Swaran Singh v. State through Standing Counsel, (2008) 8 SCC 435.
Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761.
JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta, J. - The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of
Uttarakhand at Nainital on 20.7.2020 whereby the petition filed by the appellant under section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the charge-sheet as well as the summoning order
dated 25.6.2020 was dismissed.
2. The FIR No. 173 in question was lodged by the respondent No. 2 on 11.12.2019 at 23:24 hours in
respect of an incident alleged to have occurred on 10.12.2019 at 10:00 hours against the appellants
and others. The FIR was lodged for the offences under Sections 452, 1 For short, the 'Code' 504, 506
and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(e) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. The said FIR, when translated, reads as under:
"Respected SHO with respect of registering of FIR, the complainant is presently resident of Gram
New Bajeti Patti Chandak Tehsil & District Pithoragarh. I am constructing my house on my Khet
No. 6195, 6196 & 6199 but Banshilal, Pyarelal S/o Late Har Lal, Hitesh Verma S/o Sh. Pyarelal,
Pawan Verma S/o Banshilal, Uma Verma w/o Pyarelal and their Nepali Domestic help Raju from
past 6 months are not allowing the applicant to work on her fields. All the above persons used to
abuse the applicant her husband and other family members and use to give death threats and
use Caste coloured abuses. On 10.12.2019 at around 10 am, all these persons entered illegally in
to four walls of her building and started hurling abuses on myself and my labourers and gave
death threats and used castes' remarks/abuses and took away the construction material such as
Cement, Iron, Rod, Bricks. The Applicant is a Scheduled Caste and all of the above person uses
castes' remarks/abuses (used bad language) and said that you are persons of bad caste and that
we will not let you live in this mohalla/vicinity. Respect Sir, the applicant and her family has
threat to her life from such persons. Thus, it is requested that an FIR may be lodged against such
persons and necessary action may be taken against them....."
3. Pursuant to the FIR filed by Respondent No. 2, Police filed a report disclosing offences under
Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, cognizance for the same was taken by the Trial
Court on 25.6.2020. It is the said order which was challenged along with the charge-sheet before the
High Court, which was unsuccessful.
4. On the other hand, on the basis of the statement of Mr. Pawan Verma, an FIR No. 174 at about 23:47
hours was lodged on 11.12.2019 in respect of an occurrence which had taken place allegedly at 9:45

2/7
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

hours on 11.12.2019. A charge-sheet in the said matter has been submitted against respondent No. 2
and others. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh had taken cognizance for the
offences under Sections 323 and 354 IPC against respondent No. 2 and others on 2.7.2020.
5. The Appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court by way of a petition under Section 482 of
the Code to challenge the chargesheet and the order taking cognizance. The Appellant relied upon
Gerige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 531 wherein the allegation
was of abusing the complainant in the name of their caste and this Court quashed the complaint. The
attention of the High Court was drawn to another judgment reported as Ashabai Machindra
Adhagale v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2009) 3 SCC 789 wherein this Court refused to quash
the FIR on the ground that the caste of the accused was not mentioned in the first information report.
The High Court found that both the abovementioned cases dealt with the same issue with regard to
applicability of the provisions of the Act. It was observed by the High Court that the appellant had
categorically admitted that the informant belonged to Scheduled Caste and that she and her labourers
were abused. Therefore, the provisions of the Act were found to be applicable and accordingly, after
investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted. The High Court dismissed the petition with the
aforesaid findings.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the disputes relating to the property are pending
before the Civil Court and that, the present FIR has been filed on patently false grounds by
respondent No. 2 only to harass the appellant and to abuse of process of law. It is argued that the
allegations levelled in the FIR and the subsequent report submitted by the Police after investigations
does not disclose any offence under the Act. Furthermore, it is argued that the report neither discloses
the caste of the informant nor the allegations are that they were made in public view. Also, the
offending words are not purported to be made for the reason that the informant is a person belonging
to Scheduled Caste.
7. The learned counsel for the State on the contrary, submitted that during investigations, certain
persons have supported the version of the informant. It is argued on behalf of respondent No. 2 that
in fact the appellant and his family are encroacher on the informant's land. Therefore, the appellant
was rightly not granted any indulgence by the High Court.
8. Against the backdrop of these facts, it is pertinent to refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons
of enactment of the Act. It is provided as under:
"Despite various measures to improve the socioeconomic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes, they remain vulnerable. They are denied number of civil rights. They are
subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have, in several
brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and property. Serious crimes are committed against
them for various historical, social and economic reasons.
2. Because of the awareness created amongst the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
through spread of education, etc., they are trying to assert their rights and this is not being taken
very kindly by the others. When they assert their rights and resist practices of untouchability
against them or demand statutory minimum wages or refuse to do any bonded and forced
labour, the vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise them. When the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes try to preserve their selfrespect or honour of their women, they
become irritants for the dominant and the mighty. Occupation and cultivation of even the
Government allotted land by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is resented and
more often these people become victims of attacks by the vested interests. Of late, there has

3/7
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

bene an increase in the disturbing trend of commission of certain atrocities like making the
Scheduled Caste persons eat inedible substances like human excreta and attacks on and mass
killings of helpless Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and rape of women belonging to
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Under the circumstances, the existing laws like
the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the normal provisions of the Indian Penal Code have
been found to be inadequate to check these crimes. A special Legislation to check and deter
crimes against them committed by non-Scheduled Castes and non-Scheduled Tribes has,
therefore, become necessary."
9. The long title of the Act is to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, to provide for Special Courts and Exclusive Special
Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences
and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
10. The Act was enacted to improve the social economic conditions of the vulnerable sections of the
society as they have been subjected to various offences such as indignities, humiliations and
harassment. They have been deprived of life and property as well. The object of the Act is thus to
punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations and harassment and commit the offence as
defined under Section 3 of the Act. The Act is thus intended to punish the acts of the upper caste
against the vulnerable section of the society for the reason that they belong to a particular
community.
11. It may be stated that the charge-sheet filed is for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The
said section stands substituted by Act No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016. The substituted corresponding
provision is Section 3(1)(r) which reads as under:
"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;"
12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as "1)
intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any place within public view".
13. 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. All
insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or
intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of
the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a
member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and
harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the
indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance
with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil
court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are
availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for
the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste.
14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view".
What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in
the judgment reported as Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Ors.,

4/7
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

(2008) 8 SCC 435. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression "public place" and "in
any place within public view". It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a
lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the
boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if
the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives
or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. The Court held as under:
"28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by
Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar") when he stood near the car which was parked at
the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the
gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had
the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view.
However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the
lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would
certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building,
but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be
an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression "place
within public view" with the expression "public place". A place can be a private place but yet
within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is
owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or
an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies."
15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building.
It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or
friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were
uttered "in any place within public view" is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the
charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons
present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the
four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh, it cannot
be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the
building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet.
16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is the subject matter of civil dispute
between the parties as per respondent No.2 herself. Due to dispute, appellant and others were not
permitting respondent No.2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the matter is regarding
possession of property pending before the Civil Court, any dispute arising on account of possession of
the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimated
or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
17. In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2019 SCC
OnLine SC 1104 this Court held that in a case for applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact
that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhanced punishment.
This Court held that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant
only because the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. The Court held as under:
"15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so as to attract the offence under
Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the
ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present
case, the fact that the deceased was belonging to "Khangar"-Scheduled Caste is not disputed.
There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim

5/7
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

was a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused
under section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
is not sustainable."
18. 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. In the present case, the parties
are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who
claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under
Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.
19. This Court in a judgment reported as Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr., (2018) 6 SCC 454 issued certain directions in respect of investigations
required to be conducted under the Act. In a review filed by the Union against the said judgment, this
Court in a judgment reported as Union of India v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2020) 4 SCC
761 reviewed the directions issued by this Court and held that if there is a false and unsubstantiated
FIR, the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked.
The Court held as under:
"52. There is no presumption that the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
may misuse the provisions of law as a class and it is not resorted to by the members of the
upper castes or the members of the elite class. For lodging a false report, it cannot be said that
the caste of a person is the cause. It is due to the human failing and not due to the caste factor.
Caste is not attributable to such an act. On the other hand, members of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes due to backwardness hardly muster the courage to lodge even a first
information report, much less, a false one. In case it is found to be false/unsubstantiated, it may
be due to the faulty investigation or for other various reasons including human failings
irrespective of caste factor. There may be certain cases which may be false that can be a ground
for interference by the Court, but the law cannot be changed due to such misuse. In such a
situation, it can be taken care of in proceeding under section 482 CrPC, 1973."
20. Later, while examining the constitutionality of the provisions of the Amending Act (Central Act No.
27 of 2018), this Court in a judgment reported as Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors.,
(2020) 4 SCC 727 held that proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code. It was held
as under:
"12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under section 482 CrPC, 1973 for
quashing the cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters, as already observed
while deciding the review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no argument to the contrary
has been raised."
21. In Gerige Pentaiah, one of the arguments raised was nondisclosure of the caste of the accused but
the facts were almost similar as there was civil dispute between parties pending and the allegation
was that the accused has called abuses in the name of the caste of the victim. The High Court herein
has misread the judgment of this Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale as it was not a case about the
caste of the victim but the fact that the accused was belonging to upper caste was not mentioned in
the FIR. The High Court of Bombay had quashed the proceedings for the reason that the caste of the
accused was not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is not
made out. In an appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court, this Court held that this will be

6/7
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

the matter of investigation as to whether the accused either belongs to or does not belong to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the High Court erred in law to dismiss the quashing
petition relying upon later larger Bench judgment.
22. The appellant had sought quashing of the charge-sheet on the ground that the allegation does not
make out an offence under the Act against the appellant merely because respondent No. 2 was a
Scheduled Caste since the property dispute was not on account of the fact that respondent No. 2 was a
Scheduled Caste. The property disputes between a vulnerable section of the society and a person of
upper caste will not disclose any offence under the Act unless, the allegations are on account of the
victim being a Scheduled Caste. Still further, the finding that the appellant was aware of the caste of
the informant is wholly inconsequential as the knowledge does not bar, any person to protect his
rights by way of a procedure established by law.
23. This Court in a judgment reported as Ishwar Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Anr., (2018) 13 SCC 612 held that there is no prohibition under the law for quashing the charge-
sheet in part. In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court is required to examine
as to whether its intervention is required for prevention of abuse of process of law or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. The Court held as under:
"9. Having regard to the settled legal position on external interference in investigation and the
specific facts of this case, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have exercised its
jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, 1973 to secure the ends of justice. There is no prohibition
under law for quashing a charge-sheet in part. A person may be accused of several offences
under different penal statutes, as in the instant case. He could be aggrieved of prosecution only
on a particular charge or charges, on any ground available to him in law. Under Section 482, all
that the High Court is required to examine is whether its intervention is required for
implementing orders under the Criminal Procedure Code or for prevention of abuse of process,
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. A charge-sheet filed at the dictate of somebody other
than the police would amount to abuse of the process of law and hence the High Court ought to
have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 to the extent of the abuse. There is no
requirement that the charge-sheet has to be quashed as a whole and not in part. Accordingly,
this appeal is allowed. The supplementary report filed by the police, at the direction of the
Commission, is quashed."
24. In view of the above facts, we find that the charges against the appellant under Section 3(1)(r) of
the Act are not made out. Consequently, the charge-sheet to that extent is quashed. The appeal is
disposed of in the above terms.
25. The FIR in respect of other offences will be tried by the competent Court in accordance with law
along with the criminal case11, though separately initiated, for the reason that it relates to interparty
dispute and is in respect of same subject matter of property, despite of the fact that two different
dates of the incident have been provided by the parties.
.

7/7