Supreme Court Overturns Delhi HC Order on Caste Slur Case, Upholds Magistrate’s Order
CASE TITLE – Priti Agarwalla & Ors. v. The State of GNCT of Delhi & Ors.
CASE NUMBER – Criminal Appeal No(s). 348 of 2021 & 349 of 2021
DATED ON – 17.05.2024
QUORUM – Justice S.V.N Bhatti & Justice M.M. Sundresh
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Olympic Riding and Equestrian Academy, Eastern Jaunapur, New Delhi (for short, “OREA”), is a training facility for enthusiastic equestrian athletes. Mr. Kapil Nath Modi administers and runs the said training facility. Appellant Nos. 2, 3, 6 and Respondent No. 2 were the trainee athletes in OREA. Appellant No. 1 is the mother of Appellant No. 2. Appellant Nos. 4 and 5 are the parents of Appellant No. 6. The equestrian sport dates back to the ancient Greek era and has been an Olympic sport from 1900 onwards. The dressage sport is popularly known as horse ballet. The riders and their horses are judged based on their movement, calmness, suppleness and flexibility. The controversy considered in the present appeal reflects whether the athletes under training at OREA, who wanted to control the mind and body of a horse, have lost the calmness, suppleness and flexibility while being trained at OREA. On 03.04.2018, Appellant No. 4 filed a complaint before SHO, P.S. Fatehpur Beri, against the administrator of OREA. The said complaint is not made under any specific section of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The administrator, however, considering the nature of the allegations in the FIR lodged against him before SHO, P.S. Fatehpur Beri, on 06.04.2018, moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Saket District Court, Delhi. On 11.04.2018, the anticipatory bail application of the administrator stood dismissed. On 12.04.2018, Appellant No. 1 and her husband filed yet another complaint against the administrator of OREA, on the alleged illtreatment meted out to their son/Appellant No. 2 by the administrator. Daksh Mittal wrote a letter dated 21.04.2018 to the administrator, informing the conspiracy being hatched by the members of the “Alliance” WhatsApp group to kill the administrator and attack Respondent No. 2 by pouring acid on Respondent No. 2. The administrator, on 22.04.2018, by referring to the letter dated 21.04.2018, filed a complaint before SHO P.S. Fatehpur Beri for protection and also to prevent any plan being executed either on the administrator or Respondent No. 2 by a few members of the WhatsApp group, “Alliance”. The Criminal Appeal concerns the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 on 29.04.2018 before SHO P.S. Fatehpur Beri, South Delhi under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act of 1989”) against the Appellants herein
ISSUE
- Whether the order dated 09.07.2018 of the Metropolitan Magistrate conforms to the material on record and satisfies the mandate of section 156(3) of the CrPC?
- Whether the complaint(s) dated 29.04.2018/09.05.2018 make out a prima facie case of an offence under section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act 1989?
CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANTS
The Learned Counsel representing the Appellants argued that the order under appeal had not appreciated the full conspectus of the controversy preceding the filing of the complaint dated 29.04.2018. He stated that the administrator of OREA had encouraged Respondent No. 2 to file a complaint alleging the commission of offences under the Act of 1989, though none existed over the years. The administrator, having been unsuccessful in getting anticipatory bail, etc., in the FIRs filed by the Appellants, had pursued or pressurized Respondent No. 2 to initiate prosecution by filing a complaint dated 29.04.2018 and the application dated 09.05.2018 under the Act of 1989 against the appellants. It was argued that these complaints are false and motivated. He argued that the complaint dated 29.04.2018 and the application dated 09.05.2018 do not disclose that an act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force had been made out. The offence alleged against Appellants as stated under section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989, and to constitute an offence under section 3(1)(r) of the Act of 1989, the complaint must aver that the commission or omission has been made in public view, and stated that the allegations in the complaints are vague and indefinite and do not constitute an offence arising under the Act of 1989, independent of examination of any other material.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENTS
The Learned Counsel representing the Respondents argued that the word “Faggot” used in the WhatsApp group “Alliance”, is a casteist remark, and should be punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and stated the Parliament, realizing the need to protect the marginalized sections of the Indian society from caste slurs or abetment of offences against people and property, enacted the Act of 1989, and that the grievances of Respondent No. 2 made through Complaint dated 29.04.2018 fell on deaf ears of the police. He argued that Respondent No. 2, considering his background, suffered in silence the slurs alleged at him for months and years, and filed the complaint and application on 29.04.2018 and 09.05.2018, respectively, so the delay, would not lead to any adverse inference on the alleged commission of an offence under section 3(1)(r) of the Act of 1989, and the argument on “public view” as sine qua non for attracting section 3(1)(r) is untenable in the circumstances of the case. He further stated that although OREA is a private training institute, the utterances satisfy as having been made within the academy. Therefore, these utterances once are made in OREA satisfy as having been made in public view, and the absence of names of witnesses or the public who witnessed this slur is not fatal.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Hon’ble Supreme Court after going through the facts of the case, summed it up and understood it as the accusation of intentionally abusing and humiliating Respondent No. 2 which spans over a period of two years between 2016 and 2018, and that the allegation prima facie appears to be an omnibus and ambiguous allegation, but however, does not refer to the place nor the public view before whom it was made. They stated that the accusations in the complaints do not satisfy as having been made in any place within public view. Thereby, directing registration of FIR and further steps as unsustainable. And also disagreed with the observations of the High Court of Delhi directing the registration of an FIR, for the reasons they had recorded stated is untenable and warrants interference in the appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court then held that the criminal appeal is allowed, and the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 09.07.2018 should be upheld, which was against the directions of the High Court.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao
