Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974), S. 190, S. 204 — Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (33 of 1989), Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) — Taking cognizance and issue of process — Vague allegations — Absence of specific caste-based words/slurs — Effect. Held: Although at the stage of taking cognizance the court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence, the basic statutory ingredients of the alleged offence must prima facie emerge from the record. Where the FIR and witness statements disclose only a general scuffle/altercation without attributing any specific caste-based abusive words or slurs to the accused, and fail to establish that the alleged utterances were heard or witnessed by members of the public, the summoning order under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) cannot be sustained. (Paras 13, 15, 16, 18)

  2026 INSC 895

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(From: Allahabad High Court)

Coram: VIKRAM NATH and SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5113 of 2023), D/- 20-08-2026.

Ramkrishna Chauhan — Appellant

versus

State of U.P. & Anr. — Respondents

HEADNOTE

(A) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (33 of 1989), Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) — Expression "in any place within public view" — Essential ingredients — Offence occurring inside enclosed room within school premises — No member of public present or in hearing distance.

Held: To constitute an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the alleged caste-based abuse, insult, or intimidation must occur "in any place within public view." The place must be open where members of the public can witness or hear the utterance. If the alleged occurrence takes place within the four corners of a closed wall/room where members of the public are neither present nor capable of hearing the utterance, the statutory requirement of "within public view" is not satisfied. The mere fact that the incident took place inside the overall premises of an educational institution does not ipso facto make it a place within public view. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 17)

(2020) 10 SCC 710 and 2025 INSC 132 — Relied on.

(B) Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974), S. 190, S. 204 — Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (33 of 1989), Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) — Taking cognizance and issue of process — Vague allegations — Absence of specific caste-based words/slurs — Effect.

Held: Although at the stage of taking cognizance the court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence, the basic statutory ingredients of the alleged offence must prima facie emerge from the record. Where the FIR and witness statements disclose only a general scuffle/altercation without attributing any specific caste-based abusive words or slurs to the accused, and fail to establish that the alleged utterances were heard or witnessed by members of the public, the summoning order under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) cannot be sustained. (Paras 13, 15, 16, 18)

FACTS

• Respondent No. 2 (complainant) lodged FIR No. 37 of 2020 under Sections 147, 323, 342, 504 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act against the Appellant (Manager of the school where the complainant's sons studied) and staff members.
  
  
• The complainant alleged that following an altercation involving his son, he approached the Appellant at the school, where the Appellant allegedly assaulted him and uttered caste-based abuses. (Paras 3.1, 3.2)
  
  
• A cross-FIR (FIR No. 39 of 2020) was lodged on the same date by the Appellant's wife against Respondent No. 2 alleging assault and abuse inside the school office. (Para 3.6)
  
  
• The charge-sheet was submitted, and the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) took cognizance and issued summons on 08.08.2022. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, vide impugned order dated 10.04.2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 930 of 2023, declined to interfere with the summoning order. (Paras 2, 3.3, 3.4, 4)
  
  

ANALYSIS OF FACTS & LAW

• Site of Occurrence and Absence of "Public View": The site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer explicitly marked the place of incident as Room "A" (an enclosed school office with no window or public access). The statements of the four teachers recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. showed that while they were present in the school premises, none of them were inside the enclosed room or heard/witnessed any caste-based utterances. Thus, the statutory requirement of "within public view" under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) was completely missing. (Paras 6, 12, 14, 15, 17)
  
  
• Lack of Specificity in Allegations: Neither the FIR nor the statement of the complainant specified the exact caste-based words or slurs alleged to have been used by the Appellant. The allegations were vague and general, demonstrating only a scuffle arising out of an altercation between students. (Para 13)
  
  
• Quashing of Summoning Order Pro Tanto: While the basic ingredients of the offences under the SC/ST Act were not made out even prima facie, the allegations regarding offences under the Indian Penal Code warranted continuation of proceedings. (Paras 18, 19)
  
  

CONCLUSION

• The judgment and order of the High Court dated 10.04.2023 was set aside.
  
  
• Criminal appeal was allowed in part: the summoning order dated 08.08.2022 and proceedings arising out of FIR No. 37 of 2020 were quashed solely in respect of offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act against the Appellant.
  
  
• Proceedings to continue against the Appellant in respect of the remaining offences under the Indian Penal Code. (Paras 19, 20)