Caste-based humiliation in public view is essential for an atrocity charge; partial quashing can remove only the unsustainable count.

An offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 requires intentional caste-based insult or humiliation directed at a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe member in a place within public view. A mere property dispute, even with abusive allegations, does not by itself satisfy that ingredient, and conduct alleged to have occurred within a building without public presence was insufficient. The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC may be used to quash only the unsustainable part of a charge-sheet, while the remaining offences may proceed. The atrocity charge was therefore quashed, but prosecution continued for the other offences.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the allegations disclosed the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, particularly intentional insult with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. (ii) Whether the charge-sheet and cognizance could be quashed in part under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where the atrocity allegation was not made out, while the remaining offences were left to proceed.

Issue (i): Whether the allegations disclosed the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, particularly intentional insult with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.

Analysis: The offence under the Act is attracted only when the insult or intimidation is directed at the victim because of membership of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and is committed in a place within public view. A mere property dispute, even if accompanied by allegations of abuse, does not by itself establish the statutory element of caste-based humiliation. On the facts pleaded, the incident was alleged to have occurred within the four walls of a building, and there was no material showing presence of members of the public so as to satisfy the requirement of public view.

Conclusion: The ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) were not made out, and the atrocity charge was liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the charge-sheet and cognizance could be quashed in part under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where the atrocity allegation was not made out, while the remaining offences were left to proceed.

Analysis: The inherent power under Section 482 can be exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. There is no legal bar to quashing only the part of a charge-sheet that is unsustainable, while permitting prosecution to continue for the remaining offences. Since the caste-based charge lacked foundational ingredients, interference was justified to that extent alone.

Conclusion: Partial quashing was permissible, and the proceedings were set aside only to the extent of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act charge.

Final Conclusion: The caste-based atrocity allegation failed on merits, but the prosecution was permitted to continue for the other offences arising from the same transaction.

Ratio Decidendi: An offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 requires caste-based intentional humiliation in a place within public view, and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be invoked to quash only the unsustainable part of a charge-sheet.

---