Case Name: GUNJAN @ GIRIJA KUMARI & ORS. V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Petition Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2446 Of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9198 of 2025)
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 468
Date of Judgment: 11.05.26
Coram: HON’BLE JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA & HON’BLE JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA
INTRODUCTION
This case concerns whether allegations of caste-based abuse and criminal intimidation were sufficient to justify framing charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) and Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Supreme Court set aside the charges because the complaint did not show that the incident occurred in a “place within public view”, which is an essential ingredient of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The Court also found the ingredients of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC and common intention under Section 34 IPC were not made out.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Appellants and the Complainant (Respondent No. 2) are family members involved in a dispute over property left by their late father, Shri Nand Kishore, at Hari Nagar and Ramesh Nagar in Delhi. While the husbands are brothers belonging to a Scheduled Caste, the Appellant wives hail from other castes. Respondent No. 2 alleged that on 28 January 2021 the appellants abused him using caste-based slurs and threatened him when they were allegedly trying to break open the lock of the house. FIR No. 42 of 2021 was registered at Kirti Nagar Police Station on 30 January 2021 and after investigation, the case became Sessions Case No. 253 of 2021. The trial court framed charges on 30 November 2022 and the Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition 22 August 2024, holding that a “mini-trial” wasn’t required at the framing stage and that the statements of witnesses corroborated the allegations.
ISSUES
- Whether the alleged offenses under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were committed in a “place within public view” when the incident occurred at a private residence ?
- Whether the ingredients of Criminal Intimidation (Section 506 IPC) were met, specifically the “intent to cause alarm” ?
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
The appellants argued that the FIR did not show any incident in a “place within public view”, which is a mandatory requirement for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. They contended the incident took place within the four walls of a house and involved only family members or friends, not the general public. They further argued that the allegations did not establish the intent to cause alarm needed for Section 506 IPC, nor any common intention for Section 34 IPC.
The respondents supported the High Court’s view and contented that at the stage of framing charges, the court only needs to see if a prima facie case exists and the court should not conduct a mini-trial at the stage of charge. They relied on the statements of the witness to claim that the slurs were heard and the intimidation was real.
JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court while dealing with the first issue, held that the charges under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act could not stand because the FIR and the chargesheet did not disclose the essential requirement that the alleged insult or caste abuse occurred “in any place within public view”. The Court treated the requirement as a sine qua non for these offences and held that a private residential house, without any allegation that members of the public were present or could witness the incident, does not satisfy the statutory threshold.
In reaching this decision, the Court relied on Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 435, to distinguish “public view” only if the act is visible or audible to members of the public. It then followed Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. (2020) 10 SCC 710 to emphasize that abuse occurring within the four walls of a house, without the presence of independent public witnesses, does not attract the SC/ST Act. The Court also referred to Karuppudayar v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 21, which clarified that a place is within public view only when members of the public can witness or hear the utterance and if the incident occurs within enclosed walls where the public is absent, the provision is not satisfied.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the complaint was vague on the place of occurrence and on its own showing, suggested a family dispute inside a residential house at Ramesh Nagar. The named witnesses did not support the claim that the incident was witnessed by outsiders or independent members of the public and the allegations of earlier harassment were too general to establish the offence. The Court also relied on the principle in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, that an FIR can be quashed when, even on a plain reading, it does not disclose the basic ingredients of the offence.
As regards to the second issue related with Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC, the Court held that the complaint did not show the necessary “intent to cause alarm” required for criminal intimidation under Section 503 and 506 IPC. It further found no factual basis to infer common intention among the appellants under Section 34 IPC. The Court therefore concluded that continuing the presentation would amount to abuse of process and harassment and it quashed the FIR and chargesheet in entirety.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment and the trial court’s charge orders and quashed the FIR and chargesheet in respect of Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act and 506 & 34 IPC. This case is significant as it reinforced that criminal law must not be invoked for grievances that fail to meet specific statutory thresholds, ensuring the Act’s protections remain focused on genuine public atrocities.
