<p>The high court has said that merely taking the name of the caste would not make it an offence under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, unless it is with an intention to insult the person belonging to the said caste.</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna observed this while quashing the proceedings against an accused insofar as it relates to provisions of the Atrocities Act.</p>.<p>The matter pertains to a quarrel between two groups over a game of cricket. The Suryanagar police in Anekal taluk had registered the FIR against one V Shailesh Kumar, a resident of Bandesandra village in Anekal taluk, for offences under IPC. The complainant is the mother of the victim, who was part of the team that had lost the match.</p>.<p>The petitioner Shailesh Kumar moved the high court after the police filed a charge sheet under IPC sections as well as Section 3 (1) (r) and (s) of the Atrocities Act. The petition stated that though initially offences only under the IPC were registered, the Atrocities Act was invoked since several players in the cricket game gave statements that there were abuses hurled while the game was being played.</p>.<p>The petitioner argued that the charge sheet summary only narrates the allegation of assault, kidnapping and fight between the two and there was no intention, even if it is accepted that the abuses were hurled taking the name of the caste. The government advocate argued that the intention or otherwise of the petitioner is a matter to be decided in the trial.</p>.<p>Justice Nagaprasanna noted that there is no narration of any intention to insult or humiliate taking the name of the caste either in the statements or in the summary of the charge sheet. The court observed that the soul of the provision under section 3 (1) (r) and (s) of the Atrocities Act is intention.</p>.<p>“The insult should be intentional and the intimidation should be with intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe,” the court said.</p>.<p>The bench also observed that in the case at hand, the investigation was conducted by the sub-inspector and hence there is violation of Rule 7 framed under the Atrocities Act, as there is no order directing investigation to be conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The court further said that insofar as the IPC offences are concerned, it is for the petitioner to come out clean since they are grave in nature.</p>
<p>The high court has said that merely taking the name of the caste would not make it an offence under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, unless it is with an intention to insult the person belonging to the said caste.</p>.<p>Justice M Nagaprasanna observed this while quashing the proceedings against an accused insofar as it relates to provisions of the Atrocities Act.</p>.<p>The matter pertains to a quarrel between two groups over a game of cricket. The Suryanagar police in Anekal taluk had registered the FIR against one V Shailesh Kumar, a resident of Bandesandra village in Anekal taluk, for offences under IPC. The complainant is the mother of the victim, who was part of the team that had lost the match.</p>.<p>The petitioner Shailesh Kumar moved the high court after the police filed a charge sheet under IPC sections as well as Section 3 (1) (r) and (s) of the Atrocities Act. The petition stated that though initially offences only under the IPC were registered, the Atrocities Act was invoked since several players in the cricket game gave statements that there were abuses hurled while the game was being played.</p>.<p>The petitioner argued that the charge sheet summary only narrates the allegation of assault, kidnapping and fight between the two and there was no intention, even if it is accepted that the abuses were hurled taking the name of the caste. The government advocate argued that the intention or otherwise of the petitioner is a matter to be decided in the trial.</p>.<p>Justice Nagaprasanna noted that there is no narration of any intention to insult or humiliate taking the name of the caste either in the statements or in the summary of the charge sheet. The court observed that the soul of the provision under section 3 (1) (r) and (s) of the Atrocities Act is intention.</p>.<p>“The insult should be intentional and the intimidation should be with intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe,” the court said.</p>.<p>The bench also observed that in the case at hand, the investigation was conducted by the sub-inspector and hence there is violation of Rule 7 framed under the Atrocities Act, as there is no order directing investigation to be conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The court further said that insofar as the IPC offences are concerned, it is for the petitioner to come out clean since they are grave in nature.</p>