High Court of Orissa
Case Details
IN THE HIG E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 471 of 2016 Sushanta Kumar mar Sahu …. Petitioner Mr. B. S. Rayaguru aguru, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Oppos pposite Parties Mr. R. B. Dash Dash, Addl. P.P CORAM: THE HON’BLE BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN JAN DASH Date of Judgment: 12.09.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, ash, J. 1. 2. Heard learn rd learned counsels for both the parties. The backg background facts of the case, in brief, a rief, are that on 26.11.2013, one A one Abhiram Sethy lodged a written report report before the I.I.C., Chhendipad ndipada, alleging that on the same day at a y at about 12.00 noon, while he e he was returning home from Bagad Bagadia on his motorcycle, the Pe the Petitioner along with five others obstruc bstructed his way near the village Hi age High School, abused him in filthy langua language, and the Petitioner further urther assaulted him on the head with an ith an iron rod, causing injury. It w ry. It was further alleged that the Petitioner tioner also hurled caste-related abus abuses at the Informant. On the basis o basis of the said report, Chhendipa ndipada P.S. Case No.233 of 2013 was reg as registered for the offences unde s under Sections 341/323/294/506/34 IPC 4 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) o )(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Upon com n completion of investigation, char , charge-sheet was submitted, whereafter after the learned court took cogniza ognizance of the offences and issued process rocess against the Petitioner. CRLMC No. 471 of 2 of 2016 Page 1 of 8 3.
Legal Reasoning
he term “any place within public view” in up for consideration before this Court in th aran Singh and others v. State th ing Counsel and another1. This Court in th itesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand to Swaran Singh (supra ew” initially rt in the case e through rt in the case hand and (supra) and referred 10. The te came up fo of Swaran Standing C of Hitesh another2 reiterated t rated the legal position as under: “14. A 14. Another key ingredient of the provis nsult or intimidation in “any place within insult o iew”. What is to be regarded as “place in view”. iew” had come up for consideration befor view” ourt in the judgment reported as Swaran Si Court i State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] . The Court had (2008) istinction between the expression “public distinct nd “in any place within public view”. It wa and “in provision is ithin public ce in public before this n Singh v. SCC 435 : t had drawn ublic place” . It was held
Arguments
Mr. Rayag Rayaguru, learned counsel for the Petitioner itioner, submitted that the Petitioner itioner had earlier approached this Court i ourt in CRLMC No.6188 of 2014 2014 praying for quashing of the FIR, w IR, wherein this Court, by order order dated 16.12.2014, declined to int to interfere and permitted the inve e investigation to proceed. It is further con er contended that the impugned or ed order taking cognizance suffers from s from illegality inasmuch as it is s it is based on no evidence; neither the F the FIR nor the materials on recor record disclose any prima facie case to im to implicate the Petitioner in the n the alleged offences. Learned counsel a nsel argues that allegations in the in the FIR are false, inherently improbable obable, and such that no prudent pe ent person could arrive at the conclusion th sion that they are sufficient to proce proceed against the Petitioner. Hence, the ce, the impugned order, being not in not in consonance with law, deserves to b es to be quashed. The learned coun counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the on the decisions reported in Rame amesh Chandra Vaishya vs. The Stat State of Uttar Pradesh & anoth another, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Line SC 668; Karuppudayar vs. r vs. State Rep. By The Deputy Superin perintendent of Police, Lalgudi T di Trichy & others, reported in AIR 202 2025 SC 705; Chirag Sen & an & another Etc. vs. State of Karnataka & ka & another, reported in 2025 I 25 INSC 903; Gorige Pentaiah vs. State State of A.P. & others, reported in rted in (2008) 12 SCC 531; Hitesh Verma vs a vs. The State of Uttarakhan & a 5584. & another, reported in AIR 2020 SC 5584 4. Per contra contra, Mr. Dash, learned counsel for l for the State vehemently oppos opposed the contentions advanced on beh on behalf of the Petitioner. It is sub t is submitted that the allegations made in th e in the FIR, duly supported by the y the statements of the witnesses record recorded during investigation, cle , clearly disclose the commission of n of cognizable offences and prim prima facie implicate the Petitioner. Howe However, at the CRLMC No. 471 of 2 of 2016 Page 2 of 8 stage of cognizan nizance, the Court is only required to see to see whether a prima facie case case exists and not to meticulously ev sly evaluate the sufficiency of ev of evidence for conviction. Since the in the investigation culminated in a ch in a charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate istrate, upon due consideration, has n, has taken cognizance of the offences, the es, the impugned order cannot be sai t be said to be illegal or without basis. Hence Hence, the prayer for quashing, as m g, as made by the Petitioner, is devoid of oid of merit and liable to be rejecte ejected. 5. In this con is context, it is apposite to refer to the deci e decision of the Hon’ble Supreme reme Court in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs ya vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & esh & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Line SC 668, as follows – “17. The whether it appellant h with an int humiliate January, 2 prosecution witnesses appellant o and 504, I witnesses a and their s sheet refer member of from the ap son). Sinc appellant w the basic in SC/ST Ac that at the hurling of c appellant), n answer is The first question that calls for an answ iew that the ther it was at a place within public view th complainant llant hurled caste related abuses at the compl an intent to an intent to insult or intimidate with an int dated 21st iliate him. From the charge-sheet dated ars that the ary, 2016 filed by the I.O., it appears th ence of three ecution would seek to rely on the evidence o against the esses to drive home the charge agains sections 323 llant of committing offences under section These three 504, IPC and 3(1)(x), SC/ST Act. These ant, his wife esses are none other than the complainant, hi the charge- their son. Neither the first F.I.R. nor the c ndividual (a t refers to the presence of a fifth individ rrence (apart ber of the public) at the place of occurrence ife and their the appellant, the complainant, his wife and ade by the . Since the utterances, if any, made b ublic view”, llant were not “in any place within public v (1)(x) of the asic ingredient for attracting section 3(1)(x) refore, hold T Act was missing/absent. We, therefore incident (of at the relevant point of time of the incide ainant by the ng of caste related abuse at the complainant esent. llant), no member of the public was present. CRLMC No. 471 of 2 of 2016 Page 3 of 8 for for except belonged, That apart, assuming arguendo that the app 18. That a hurled caste related abuses at the complainan had hurled w to insult or humiliate him, the same do a view to nce the case of the complainant any furt advance th it within the ambit of section 3(1)(x) o bring it w T Act. We have noted from the first F.I.R. a SC/ST Act e charge-sheet that the same makes no refere as the char utterances of the appellant during the cou the utteran al altercation or to the caste to whic verbal alt plainant complainan ation/observation that caste-related abuses allegation/o d. The legislative intent seems to be clea hurled. Th y insult or intimidation for humiliation to a p every insul ld not amount to an offence under section 3 would not e SC/ST Act unless, of course, such ins of the SC idation is targeted at the victim because intimidatio g a member of a particular Scheduled Ca being a m e. If one calls another an idiot (bewaqoof) or Tribe. If on kh) or a thief (chor) in any place within (murkh) or , this would obviously constitute an act int view, this sult or humiliate by user of abusive or off to insult o uage. Even if the same be directed generall language. E on, who happens to be a Scheduled Caste or person, wh e, it may not be sufficient to attract section 3 per se, it m ss such words are laced with casteist rem unless suc e section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars invocat Since secti ourt’s jurisdiction under section 438, Cr.P the court’s ng regard to the overriding effect of the SC/S having rega other laws, it is desirable that before an accu over other ected to a trial for alleged commission of o subjected t r section 3(1)(x), the utterances made by h under secti place within public view are outlined, if not any place w . (which is not required to be an encyclopae F.I.R. (whi acts and events), but at least in the charge all facts an ch is prepared based either on statemen (which is esses recorded in course of investigatio witnesses rwise) so as to enable the court to asc otherwise) ther the charge sheet makes out a case whether th ce under the SC/ST Act having been com offence un orming a proper opinion in the conspectus for forming tion before it, prior to taking cognisance situation b ce. Even for the limited test that has to be a offence. Ev he appellant ant with me does not y further to 1)(x) of the .I.R. as well reference to e course of which the the abuses were lear that to a person ction 3(1)(x) ch insult or cause of he ed Caste or of) or a fool ithin public act intended or offensive enerally to a ste or Tribe, ction 3(1)(x) ist remarks. nvocation of , Cr.PC and e SC/ST Act n accused is n of offence e by him in if not in the clopaedia of charge-sheet atements of stigation or to ascertain case of an n committed ectus of the sance of the to be applied CRLMC No. 471 of 2 of 2016 Page 4 of 8 in a case o 21st Janua offence hav section 3(1 case of the present nature, the charge-sheet January, 2016 does not make out any case ce having been committed by the appellant n 3(1)(x) warranting him to stand a trial.” sheet dated y case of an ellant under 6. Similarly, ilarly, in Karuppudayar vs. State Rep. By T By The Deputy Superintendent of nt of Police, Lalgudi Trichy & others, , reported in AIR 2025 SC 705 705, the Hon’ble Court reiterated the settl e settled position that the insult or ult or intimidation must be in a place ‘wi ce ‘within public view’ and by using y using the caste name of the victim. that “9. A per A perusal of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC- ld for constituting an o reveal rev would under, it has to be established that the ac thereunder, tionally insults or intimidates with inte intentionall iliate a member of a Scheduled Caste humiliate duled Tribe in any place within public Scheduled larly, for constituting an offence under S Similarly, (s) of the SC-ST Act, it will be necessary th 3(1)(s) of t sed abuses any member of a Scheduled Cast accused ab duled Tribe by caste name in any place Scheduled ic view. public view -ST Act an offence the accused h intent to Caste or a ublic view. der Section sary that the d Caste or a place within