The Supreme Court recently provided clarity on what constitutes "public view" under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti emphasized that if an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC indicates a cognizable offense, it is mandatory for the Magistrate to direct the registration of an FIR for proper investigation.
The case in question involves the Olympic Riding and Equestrian Academy (OREA) in New Delhi, managed by Kapil Nath Modi. Several trainees, including Appellant Nos. 2, 3, and 6, and Respondent No. 2, are involved. The legal battle began in April 2018 when Appellant No. 4 filed a complaint against Modi, leading to his denied anticipatory bail. Following this, allegations ranging from ill-treatment to sexual harassment and animal cruelty surfaced against Modi.
A WhatsApp group called "Alliance" was created by the appellants to conspire against Modi and Respondent No. 2. This prompted Modi to seek protection through another complaint. On April 29, 2018, Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under the SC-ST Act, claiming the police did not investigate properly. This led to the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC on May 9, 2018, and subsequent criminal appeal.
Counsel for the appellants, Siddharth Luthra, argued that the complaint against them was orchestrated by Modi after he failed to obtain anticipatory bail. The appellants claimed that prior to their complaints in early April 2018, no issues had been raised during their training at OREA. They alleged that Modi pressured Respondent No. 2 to file the SC-ST Act complaint to counter their allegations.
Modi, defending himself, highlighted the seriousness of casteist remarks under the Indian Penal Code and emphasized the need to protect marginalized communities, as intended by the 1989 Act. He argued that Respondent No. 2's complaint revealed cognizable offenses under this Act.
The Supreme Court had to determine three key issues: whether the Magistrate's order dated July 9, 2018, was justified, whether the complaints from April 29 and May 9, 2018, presented a prima facie case under the SC-ST Act, and whether the impugned order was valid and lawful.
Referencing Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., the bench noted the importance of supporting Section 156(3) applications with a sworn affidavit to ensure responsibility and prevent frivolous complaints. The Court reiterated that the Magistrate must order an FIR if the application indicates a cognizable offense. However, if the information suggests further inquiry is needed, a preliminary investigation should be conducted.
The Supreme Court found that the Metropolitan Magistrate acted within legal bounds by seeking a preliminary inquiry and an Action Taken Report from the police. The High Court's extended discussion in its judgment was deemed unnecessary by the Supreme Court.
The bench underscored that a key aspect of "public view" under the SC-ST Act is that the alleged offense must occur within the view of persons other than the complainant, a crucial factor in determining the validity of such complaints.
