New Delhi, Jan 19 (AHN) The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a Bihar man accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, holding that mere presence at the spot and vague allegations are insufficient to put him on trial.

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Alok Aradhe set aside an order of the Patna High Court, which had refused to interfere with the cognisance and summoning order passed by a trial court in Bhagalpur.

Allowing the appeal filed by Keshaw Mahto, the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench recorded the submission of the state government’s counsel that “except the fact that the appellant was also present at the relevant point of time with the co-accused, there is no specific overt act attributed to him”.

While quashing the prosecution against him, the apex court said that “putting the appellant into trial, along with other co-accused, will be a travesty of justice”.

The case stemmed from an FIR lodged in 2019 alleging that the complainant, belonging to a Scheduled Caste, was abused and assaulted at an anganwadi centre, with caste-related abuses allegedly being hurled.

On October 9, 2020, the trial court had taken cognisance of offences under various provisions of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

The appellant had challenged the cognisance and summoning order before the Patna High Court under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act, but his plea was dismissed, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.

In its order, the apex court reiterated that offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act are not attracted merely because the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

“The fact that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe would not be enough,” the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench said, adding that any insult or intimidation must be “on the account of such person being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe”.

It further said, “Even mere knowledge of the fact that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r).”

The Supreme Court held that merely abusing a person or merely uttering a caste name would not constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

“Merely abusing a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe would not be enough. At the same time, saying caste name would also not constitute an offence,” the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench observed, clarifying that only when the abuse is “laced with the caste name” and intended to humiliate would it attract penal consequences.

Examining the FIR and the chargesheet, the apex court said that there was no allegation suggesting the appellant had uttered any caste-based words or acted with the intention to humiliate the complainant.

“Neither the FIR nor the chargesheet contains any whisper of an allegation of insult or intimidation by the appellant herein, let alone one made with the intention to humiliate the complainant,” the order stated.

The apex court also found the IPC allegations to be general and lacking essential ingredients, observing that “mere presence of the appellant does not establish his participation in the alleged offence”.

Holding that no prima facie case was made out against the appellant under either the SC/ST Act or the IPC, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal prosecution against him.

“In view of the above, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.

The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the criminal prosecution against the appellant herein is hereby quashed,” ordered the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench.