LexGUNJAN @ GIRIJA KUMARI AND OTHERS versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 550 : 2026 INSC 468 Gunjan @ Girija Kumari and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 2446 of 2026) 11 May 2026 [Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the FIR and the charge-sheet filed against the appellants- accused for offences u/ss.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act as well as for the offences u/s.506 r/w s.34, IPC, ought to be quashed. Headnotes† Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – ss.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) – “a place within public view”, when not – Offence u/s.3(1)(r) and/or s.3(1)(s) not made out if alleged caste-based abuses are hurled inside a house, not exposed to public eye or public gaze – Charge framed by trial court against the appellants-accused for offences u/ss.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act and u/s.506 r/w s.34, IPC – High Court rejected the prayer of the appellants to quash the said orders and dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition – Interference with: Held: In order to make out the offence u/s.3(1)(r) and/or s.3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the occurrence of the incident and the act and conduct of hurling of caste-based abuses must take place at “a place within public view” – It must be a place within the public gaze – Even if it happens to be a private place, then in such eventuality a public-eye must have an access to be able to notice what happens there or what is taking place that will only make the “place within public view” – Alleged incident took place in a private place and within four walls of the house of respondent No.2-complainant and the appellants, who all are family members – While the allegation in the FIR was that respondent No.2 had been suffering similar kind of incidents since long and for last one year, it was not stated anything specific in respect of those * Author [2026] 5 S.C.R. 551 Gunjan @ Girija Kumari and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another earlier incidents with regard to the incident for which the complaint was filed, it was not indicated that any independent member of public was present to witness the occurrence – Once that is so, to suggest that the house place was not exposed to public eye or public gaze, a residential house in no way becomes “a place within public view” – The requirement that the place must be one “within public view” is a sine qua non for making out the offence under the SC/ST Act – In the complaint/FIR, nowhere it was stated that the said incident wherein appellant No.1 and other appellants are stated to have abused and threatened complainant, took place where there was a public gaze – The necessary ingredient of occurrence of the incident “in a place within public view” was conspicuously absent – The charge could not have framed and was wrongly framed by the trial court against the appellants for offences u/ss.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act – Furthermore, the charge framed u/s.506 r/w s.34, IPC against all the appellants was also wrongly framed – Impugned judgment of the High Court and the orders of the trial court set aside – FIR and the charge-sheet filed against the appellants for offences u/ss.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act and for offences u/s.506 r/w s.34, IPC, quashed – Penal Code, 1860 – s.506 r/w s.34. [Paras 5.9, 6.4, 6.7, 9, 9.1] Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – ss.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) – “a place within public view”, a sine qua non for making out the offence under the SC/ST Act: Held: The occurrence of the incident to become an offence under the SC/ST Act must have happened “in a place within public view” – This is a principal requirement amongst the other ingredients – The other aspects namely “intentional insult or intimidation” and “an intent to humiliate”, gathers a kind of intensity when the insult, intimidation, humiliation or abusive utterances, as the case may be, takes place in “a place within public view”, in the presence of members of the public – The requirement that the place must be one “within public view” substantiates the other elements of the offence under the SC/ST Act – Therefore, it is a sine qua non for making out the offence under the SC/ST Act. [Para 9.1] Complaint/FIR – Contents of, giving initial description more reliable: 552 [2026] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Held: For any criminal proceedings to initiate, the starting point is filing of a complaint and r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.