AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 20-08-2026 Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant, learned Special P.P. for the State and learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20.09.2017 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kishanganj in Complaint Case No. 37C of 2017 (Special Case No. 57 of 2017), whereby learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offence under Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(u)(v) and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST Act”) and issued summons upon the appellant.
As per complaint case, the allegation is that on 26.08.2017, the complainant, who was a member of a Scheduled Caste and posted as Statistical Officer, Kishanganj, went to the chamber of the appellant, who was then posted as District Magistrate, Kishanganj, for discussing Sanchika No. 14-49/17 and when the complainant placed the file before the appellant, the appellant became angry and allegedly abused him by using caste-related and vulgar expressions. The complainant asserted that he felt humiliated on account of the alleged incident. It is also stated that on 27.08.2017 he approached the SC/ST Police Station for registration of an FIR, but according to him, because of pressure exerted upon him, no FIR was registered. Consequently, he instituted the complaint before the learned Special Court, vide Complaint Case No. 37C of 2017, and learned Special Court took cognizance of offence under aforesaid sections of SC/ST Act against appellant and directed for issuance summons, which is under-challenge in this appeal.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant assails the order of cognizance on following grounds:-
“(i)The alleged offence of insult, abuse and caste based slurs, as per complaint petition, took place in the closed chamber of the appellant, which is not a ‘place within public view’.
(ii)Besides the allegation does not reveal or constitute an offence of inciting any feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will against the member of SC or ST or for that matter any act of disrespect to any late person held in high esteem by the members of SC or ST has been alleged. There can be no allegation of neglect of duties required to be performed under this Act, against the appellant. Thus, even offence under Section 3(1) (r) & (s) (u) and (v) or 4 is not made out and the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are absent in the present case.
(iii)Besides the act of taking cognizance of the offence within 8 days of the complaint being filed (Complaint was filed on 12.09.17 and cognizance order was passed on 20.09.17) without even examining a single named enquiry witness, demonstrates a sheer act of haste and no application of mind by the learned Special Court (SC/ST Act).”
Learned senior counsel for the appellant, in support of his submission, has also placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gunjan alias Girija Kumari and Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 834 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court, relying upon its another decision in Karuppudayar vs. State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy and Others, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 215, has elaborately discussed the term “a place within public view”, which is as follows:-
"It could thus be seen that, to be a place 'within public view', the place should be open where the members of the public can witness or hear the utterance made by the accused to the victim. If the alleged offence takes place within the four corners of the wall where members of the public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place within public view."
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed following in the next paragraph of the said judgment:-
“….. when the complainant was in the office, the accused came there, made inquiries from the complainant and upon not being satisfied, started abusing the complainant in the name of his caste and insulted him. Thereafter, three colleagues of the complainant came later to pacify the accused and took him away. The Court thus noticed that the incident had taken place within the four corners of the chambers of the complainant, which was not ‘a place within public view’.”
On aforesaid grounds, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order taking cognizance suffers from a fundamental infirmity and the continuance of the proceedings against the appellant would be an abuse and misuse of the judicial process and accordingly, has prayed for setting aside order of cognizance.
Learned Special P.P. and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity and may not be interfered with by this Court.
Having heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the materials available on record, this Court is in agreement with the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that the alleged incident had not occurred within public view. Apart from that, it is also apparent from perusal of the record that order of cognizance has been passed in haste, as the complaint petition was filed only on 12.09.2017 and the order of cognizance has been passed on 20.09.2017 without proper scrutiny of the materials.
In that view of the matter, the order of cognizance dated 20.09.2017 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kishanganj in Complaint Case No. 37C of 2017 (Special Case No. 57 of 2017)under Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(u)(v) and 4 of the SC/ST Act is, hereby, set aside.
The appeal stands allowed.