The Karnataka High Court has held that for offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, casteist abuse must be thrown in a public place. It dismissed a case pending against a man as he found that the alleged misbehavior was committed in the basement of a building, where the victim and her co-workers were present alone. In the alleged incident that took place in 2020, Ritesh Pias hurled casteist abuses against Mohan in the basement of a building where he was working along with others.
All the laborers were employed by the building owner Jayakumar R Nair. Justice M Nagaprasanna, in his judgment on June 10, said: “A reading of the above statements would reveal two factors, one the basement of the building was not a place of public view and two, only those who claim to be present. Jayakumar R. Nair was the complainant and other employees or friends of the complainants.
“The hurling of abuses is clearly not in a public place or in a public place, so as to attract the Act to the case,” the court said. Besides this, the court said that there were other factors in the case. The accused Ritesh Pias had a dispute with the building owner Jayakumar R Nair and had taken a stay against the construction of the building. The court concluded that Nair was firing at Piya “on the shoulder of his employee (Johan).” The court observed that the issue of dispute between the two cannot be dismissed as it shows a clear link in the chain of events. Therefore, the registration of the offense itself suffers from lack of authenticity.”
Besides the Atrocities Act, Piya was also charged under Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the Sessions Court in Mangaluru where the case was pending. The High Court also quashed the charges, holding that “the offense punishable under section 323 of the IPC must have resulted in the writ of contempt.” However in this case, Mohan’s “wound certificate” shows a simple scratch mark on the forearm and another scratch on the chest.
Bleeding is not what is indicated. Therefore, simple scratch marks cannot constitute an offense under section 323 of the IPC,” the judgment said. While quashing the matter pending before the trial court, the High Court observed, “In the light of the above facts, when the basic elements of the offense are missing, it is permissible to continue such proceedings and compel the petitioner to face rigor.” to give. Criminal prosecution would be totally unfair, which would lead to abuse of the process of law.” ,