Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Bhimappa Jantakal @ Bhimanna and three others, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of proceedings in Special C.C.(AC) No.25/2015 pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Koppal. The case arose from Crime No.179/2015 registered at Koppal Town Police Station for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The second respondent, Ramesh Gavisiddappa Ginageri, lodged a complaint alleging that on 23-09-2015, the petitioners abused him with caste names and assaulted him inside a shop. The petitioners argued that the alleged incident occurred inside a shop, not in public view, and therefore the essential ingredient of Section 3(1)(x) was not attracted. The High Court examined the complaint and found that the incident took place inside a shop, which is a private premises, and not in a place accessible to the public. The court held that for an offence under Section 3(1)(x), the insult or intimidation must be in public view, and a private shop does not satisfy this requirement. Consequently, the court quashed the proceedings insofar as they pertained to the SC/ST Act, but allowed the trial to continue for the other IPC offences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - SC/ST Act - Public View Requirement - Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Alleged insult inside a shop not in public view - Court quashed proceedings as essential ingredient of 'public view' missing - Held that for an offence under Section 3(1)(x), the insult must be within public view, and a private shop does not satisfy this requirement (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the alleged caste-based insult occurred in 'public view' as required under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and whether the proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings insofar as they pertain to offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The trial shall continue for the other IPC offences.
Law Points
- Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act requires insult or intimidation to be in public view
- private premises not sufficient
- quashing under Section 482 CrPC for abuse of process
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (05) 2
Criminal Petition No.101825 of 2019
Neelendra D. Gunde (for petitioners), Ramesh Chigari (HCGP for R1), B.C. Jnanayyaswami (for R2)
Bhimappa Jantakal @ Bhimanna, Praveenkumar Jantakal, Anantakumar Jantakal, Vinodkumar Jantakal
State of Karnataka, Ramesh Gavisiddappa Ginageri
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings in a special case under SC/ST Act and IPC.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of order dated 12.07.2019 passed by District & Sessions Judge, Koppal, rejecting their application under Section 227 CrPC, and quashing of entire proceedings in Spl.C.C.(AC) No.25/2015.
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged that the complaint under SC/ST Act was false and that the essential ingredient of 'public view' was missing as the incident occurred inside a shop.
Previous Decisions
The trial court rejected the petitioners' discharge application under Section 227 CrPC on 12.07.2019.
Issues
Whether the alleged caste-based insult occurred in 'public view' as required under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.
Whether the proceedings under the SC/ST Act should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC for abuse of process.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the incident took place inside a shop, not in public view, and therefore Section 3(1)(x) is not attracted.
Respondents contended that the shop is a public place and the insult was in public view.
Ratio Decidendi
For an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, the insult or intimidation must be in public view. An incident occurring inside a private shop, not visible to the public, does not satisfy this requirement, and continuing such proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.
Judgment Excerpts
The incident is said to have taken place inside a shop. The shop is a private premises and not a place which is in public view.
The essential ingredient of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is that the insult should be in public view. In the case at hand, the incident is inside a shop, which is not a public place.
Procedural History
On 23-09-2015, complaint lodged by Ramesh Ginageri leading to Crime No.179/2015. Charge sheet filed and case registered as Spl.C.C.(AC) No.25/2015 before District & Sessions Judge, Koppal. Petitioners filed discharge application under Section 227 CrPC, which was rejected on 12.07.2019. Petitioners then filed Criminal Petition No.101825/2019 under Section 482 CrPC before High Court. High Court reserved orders on 21.02.2022 and pronounced on 10.05.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 323, 504, 506, 34
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: 3(1)(x)
