)
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that an alleged act of intentional insult or intimidation causing humiliation constitutes an offense under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, only if it is committed in public view.
Case Details
- Applicants: Pintu Singh and two others.
- Judge: Justice Vikram D Chauhan.
- Criminal Proceedings: Quashed against the three persons in respect of the offense under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.
FIR Details
- Date Lodged: November 2017.
- Accusations: The applicants, among seven accused, allegedly entered the complainant’s house, made caste-based remarks, and assaulted him and his family.
- Charges: Various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.
Court Proceedings and Arguments
- Defense Argument: The offense occurred in the complainant’s house, a private place not in public view, thus Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act does not apply.
- Prosecution Stance: Opposed the plea but could not dispute the private nature of the location.
Court’s Observations
- Incident Location: Verified by the site plan and complainant’s statement, confirming it occurred in the complainant’s house, not a public place.
- Legal Interpretation: Section 3(1)(r) applies only if the act is in public view.
Court’s Decision
- Date: May 10.
- Conclusion: Offense must be in public view for Section 3(1)(r) to be applicable.
- Outcome: Quashed proceedings under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.
Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs):
- What is required for an act of insult or intimidation to constitute an offense under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, 1989?
- A. The act must be committed in a private space.
- B. The act must be committed in public view.
- C. The act must involve physical violence.
- D. The act must occur in a workplace.
- Answer: B. The act must be committed in public view.
- In which year was the FIR against Pintu Singh and others lodged?
- A. 2016
- B. 2017
- C. 2018
- D. 2019
- Answer: B. 2017
- What was the primary reason for quashing the criminal proceedings against the applicants?
- A. Lack of evidence.
- B. Incident occurred in the complainant’s house, not in public view.
- C. Complainant withdrew the complaint.
- D. Offense did not involve a Scheduled Caste or Tribe member.
- Answer: B. Incident occurred in the complainant’s house, not in public view.
- Who opposed the plea of the applicants but could not dispute the private nature of the incident location?
- A. Defense counsel.
- B. Complainant’s counsel.
- C. State government’s counsel.
- D. Judge Vikram D Chauhan.
- Answer: C. State government’s counsel.
- On what date did the court deliver its decision to quash the proceedings under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act?
- A. May 1
- B. May 10
- C. May 20
- D. May 30
- Answer: B. May 10