Raj HC: Caste abuse inside Director’s office not in “public view”; SC/ST Act charges quashed

Jaipur/Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has partly allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by an Associate Professor at the Indian Institute of Technology, Jodhpur, seeking quashing of FIR No.118/2025 registered at Police Station Karwar, Jodhpur City East. The FIR had been lodged on allegations attracting offences under Sections 121(1) and 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Court held that the alleged caste-based abuse inside the Director’s office did not satisfy the statutory requirement of “public view” and that the word allegedly used did not constitute a caste name. However, the Court declined to interfere with allegations relating to assault on a public servant, holding that investigation under Sections 121(1) and 132 BNS could proceed independently.

The Court first set out the settled legal position governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Relying on authoritative precedents including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that interference at the stage of investigation is permissible only in exceptional cases where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence or where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.

Examining the allegations under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the Court noted that the FIR itself recorded that the alleged incident occurred inside the office of the Director of IIT Jodhpur. The Court held that the Director’s office was a confined space not accessible to the public at large and that the presence of a few colleagues or office staff could not satisfy the statutory requirement of an act occurring in a “place within public view”, which is a mandatory ingredient of the said provisions.

The Court further examined the allegation regarding the use of the word “neech”. On a consideration of the FIR, statements recorded during investigation, and supplementary statements, the Court found that no specific caste name was alleged to have been used. The Court held that the word “neech”, as recorded in the materials, did not constitute abuse by caste name so as to attract Section 3(1)(s) of the Act, and that the necessary mens rea to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe was not disclosed on the face of the record.

With respect to the charge under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, the Court held that the material on record did not disclose that the alleged injury to the complainant was caused while he was discharging public duty or with the intent to deter him from discharging such duty. The Court observed that the alleged scuffle primarily involved the petitioner and the Director, and that the statutory ingredients required to attract Section 3(2)(va) were not made out even if the FIR was taken at face value.

However, while dealing with the offences alleged under Sections 121(1) and 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Court held that the Director of IIT Jodhpur would fall within the definition of “public servant” under the applicable statutory provisions. The Court further held that the allegations relating to assault on the Director could not be quashed at the threshold and that the investigating agency was entitled to continue investigation in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the petition and quashed the FIR to the extent it related to offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. The Court permitted the investigation to continue with respect to offences under Sections 121(1) and 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, clarifying that the investigating agency shall proceed independently and uninfluenced by observations made in the judgment.

Case Title
Dr. Deepak Arora vs State of Rajasthan & Another

Case Number
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 7662/2025

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur

Bench
Justice Sandeep Shah

Date of Order
February 7, 2026

Advocates
For the petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Harshit Bhurani
For the respondents: Mr. Deepak Choudhary, Additional Advocate General; Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, Deputy Government Advocate