- In G.P. Hemakoti Reddy, Ananthapur Dist. Vs. P.P., Hyderabad (2022), Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed that an allegation must be made that the words were said with the expressed intent to publicly shame the complainant about belonging to a particular community for an offense to be registered under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act).
- In this case, the defacto complainant filed an FIR under Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC & ST Act which was requested to be quashed by the Petitioner (accused) through a criminal petition. The FIR alleged that the Petitioner (accused), a landlord by the side of the temple, had spoken to him, his family, and his community in an unparliamentary manner over the telephone after the defacto complainant contacted him for gaining possession of a specific area of land because the temple's current location was inadequate. Furthermore, the Petitioner argued that the claimed comments spoken over the telephone did not fall within the purview of the SC & ST Act as it was over the telephone and that continuing the criminal case would be an abuse of the judicial process.
- Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC & ST Act provides that anyone who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe knowingly insults or intimidates intending to humiliate them in any public place shall be penalized.
- In Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), the Supreme Court held that "any area within public view" was a vital component of the insult or intimidation under the SC & ST Act.
- The Hon'ble Court concluded that the essential requirement that the words be spoken "at any place within public view" must be overlooked as charges of abusing the informant in the current FIR occurred within the four walls of the premises and that there were no allegations that the defacto complaint was overheard by the public. Furthermore, any disagreement over ownership of the property would not constitute a violation of the Act unless the victim was intimidated or harassed solely because she was a member of the SC or ST because the case was about custody of property was pending in civil court.
- Therefore, the Hon'ble Court quashed the proceedings while allowing the criminal petition by stating that mere conversation on the telephone in the absence of any averments does not amount to any offense under the SC and ST Act.
"Loved reading this piece by Sharmishta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
