The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Indian Penal Code against members of a family in a property dispute, holding that the allegations did not satisfy the mandatory legal requirement that the alleged caste-based abuse must occur in “a place within public view.”
The bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria set aside the Delhi High Court’s order which had upheld the framing of charges against the accused persons under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act as well as Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The dispute arose between family members over ancestral properties situated in Hari Nagar and Ramesh Nagar in Delhi. The complainant and two of the accused were real brothers belonging to Scheduled Castes, while the wives involved in the dispute belonged to non-SC/ST communities. According to the complaint, one of the women accused allegedly used casteist slurs and threatened the complainant during a confrontation connected with the property dispute.
An FIR was registered at Kirti Nagar Police Station in January 2021 alleging offences under the SC/ST Act and criminal intimidation provisions of the IPC. The trial court framed charges against the accused, and the Delhi High Court later refused to interfere, observing that at the stage of framing of charges, a detailed appreciation of evidence was not required.
However, the Supreme Court examined the statutory ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act and emphasized that for the offence to be constituted, the alleged insult, intimidation, or caste-based abuse must take place “in any place within public view.”
The Court undertook a detailed analysis of earlier judgments including Swaran Singh v. State, Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Karuppudayar v. State to reiterate that there is a distinction between a “public place” and a “place within public view.” The Bench observed that even a private place may qualify if members of the public are able to witness the incident, but incidents occurring entirely within private premises and outside public gaze would not satisfy the requirement under the SC/ST Act.
The Court held that in the present matter, the FIR itself indicated that the alleged occurrence took place inside a residential house shared by family members. The complaint did not specifically state that the incident happened in the presence of independent members of the public or at a place visible to the public. The Bench noted that the FIR and charge-sheet consistently referred to the residential address as the place of occurrence.
The Court further found that the statements of witnesses cited by the complainant did not establish that they had actually witnessed the alleged caste-based abuse. According to the judgment, the material on record only suggested that the altercation took place within the four walls of the residential premises.
The Supreme Court observed that the absence of the “public view” ingredient was fatal to the prosecution case under the SC/ST Act. It held that the FIR must disclose all essential ingredients of the offence on its face, and if such ingredients are missing, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
The Bench also examined the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC and concluded that the complaint did not disclose any real intention to cause “alarm,” which is a necessary ingredient of the offence. The Court further held that there was nothing on record to indicate any common intention among the accused persons to commit a criminal act so as to attract Section 34 IPC.
The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court judgment as well as the trial court orders framing charges, and quashed the FIR and charge-sheet against all the accused persons.
Case Details
Case Title: Gunjan @ Girija Kumari And Others Versus State (Nct Of Delhi) And Another
Citation: JURISHOUR-1202-SC-2026
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2446 Of 2026
Date: 11/05/2026
