HITESH VERMA v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & Anr.

1.4 An offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste. [Para 13][601-A-C]

1.5 Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim A B C D E F G H HITESH VERMA v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 595 belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out. [Para 18][603-D] Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1104; Gerige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 531 : [2008] 12 SCR 623 – relied on. Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 789 : [2009] 2 SCR 382 – distinguished.

1.6 Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in “any place within public view”. In the present case, the offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet. [Paras 14 and 15][601-D; 602-C-E] Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 435 : [2008] 12 SCR 132 – relied on.

2.1 If there is a false and unsubstantiated FIR, the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked. [Para 19][603-F]