CRR-1352-2026 (O&M) CRR-1352-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (118) JYOTI DEVI STATE OF HARYANA AND CORAM: Present: ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. challenging the order dated Special Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby it was held that the offences punishable under Sections Castes and (hereinafter referred to as the accused/respondent No.2, and the case file was ordered to be sent to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, proceedings. 2. by taking this Court through the contents of the FIR and submits that the ingredients of Sections satisfied. However, t impugned order by returning a finding that the caste not hurled at the complainant in a place within public view. 2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH JYOTI DEVI Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICEALOK JAIN **** Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Swati Batra, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) The present revision petition challenging the order dated 08.05.2026 Special Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby it was held that the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "SC/ST Act" accused/respondent No.2, and the case file was ordered to be sent to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has opened his arguments by taking this Court through the contents of the FIR and submits that the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) satisfied. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, passed the impugned order by returning a finding that the caste not hurled at the complainant in a place within public view. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1352-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 23.07.2026 ……Petitioner ……Respondents ALOK JAIN Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Swati Batra, Sr. DAG, Haryana. The present revision petition has been filed, inter alia, passed by the learned Judge, Special Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby it was held that the 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 "SC/ST Act") were not made out against accused/respondent No.2, and the case file was ordered to be sent to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, for further Learned counsel for the petitioner has opened his arguments by taking this Court through the contents of the FIR and submits that the 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were duly he learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, passed the impugned order by returning a finding that the caste-related abuses were not hurled at the complainant in a place within public view. 1 23.07.2026 ……Petitioner ……Respondents has been filed, inter alia, passed by the learned Judge, Special Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby it was held that the of the Scheduled the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ) were not made out against accused/respondent No.2, and the case file was ordered to be sent to the for further Learned counsel for the petitioner has opened his arguments by taking this Court through the contents of the FIR and submits that the of the SC/ST Act were duly he learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, passed the related abuses were MANJU 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1352-2026 (O&M) 3. caste-related abusive words were used by respondent No.2 against the son of the complainant over the telephone. However, respondent No.2 was allegedly sitting at a public place, and the conversation was audible to several persons, thereby satisfying the r occurred within public view. 4. statement of Jeev his phone to respondent No.2 uttered castiest remarks to the complainant’s minor son be deemed that the alleged abuses were made in a place within public view. 5. the impugned order. relevant provisions of the SC/ST Act, which read as under: 6. in order to attract the rigours of Sections SC/ST Act, the alleged offence must, prima facie, have been committed in a place within public view. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 2026 (O&M) Learned counsel for the petitioner further reiterates that the related abusive words were used by respondent No.2 against the son of the complainant over the telephone. However, respondent No.2 was allegedly sitting at a public place, and the conversation was audible to several persons, thereby satisfying the requirement of the incident having occurred within public view. Learned counsel for the petitioner has statement of Jeevansh, wherein it has been stated that phone to respondent No.2, whereby respondent uttered castiest remarks to the complainant’s minor son be deemed that the alleged abuses were made in a place within public view. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the impugned order. At the outset, it would be imperative to reproduce the relevant provisions of the SC/ST Act, which read as under: "3. Punishments for offences of atrocities. not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— xxxxx (r)intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; (s)abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view." A perusal of the aforesaid provisions clearly demonstrates that, in order to attract the rigours of Sections SC/ST Act, the alleged offence must, prima facie, have been committed in a place within public view. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner further reiterates that the related abusive words were used by respondent No.2 against the son of the complainant over the telephone. However, respondent No.2 was allegedly sitting at a public place, and the conversation was audible to equirement of the incident having Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the ansh, wherein it has been stated that he had handed over , whereby respondent No. 2 threatened and uttered castiest remarks to the complainant’s minor son, therefore, it should be deemed that the alleged abuses were made in a place within public view. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused At the outset, it would be imperative to reproduce the relevant provisions of the SC/ST Act, which read as under: "3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.—(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled y insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view." of the aforesaid provisions clearly demonstrates that, in order to attract the rigours of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the alleged offence must, prima facie, have been committed in a place within public view. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner further reiterates that the related abusive words were used by respondent No.2 against the son of the complainant over the telephone. However, respondent No.2 was allegedly sitting at a public place, and the conversation was audible to equirement of the incident having relied upon the he had handed over threatened and , therefore, it should be deemed that the alleged abuses were made in a place within public view. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused At the outset, it would be imperative to reproduce the (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled y insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled of the aforesaid provisions clearly demonstrates that, of the SC/ST Act, the alleged offence must, prima facie, have been committed in a place within public view. The Hon'ble Supreme Court MANJU 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1352-2026 (O&M) of India, in (Criminal) 868 the house should not attract the provisions of SC/ST Act. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced 2026 (O&M) India, in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal) 868, has held that any remark made within four walls of the house should not attract the provisions of SC/ST Act. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced "12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as "1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any place within public view". 13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offe the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are den rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste. 14. Another key ingredie intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh &Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel &Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 435. had drawn distinction between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was 3 Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, 2020 (4) RCR that any remark made within four walls of the house should not attract the provisions of SC/ST Act. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced as under: "12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as "1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any place within public view". . The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio- economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either ot due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled 14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment Swaran Singh &Ors. v. State through el &Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 435. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was 3 2020 (4) RCR that any remark made within four walls of the house should not attract the provisions of SC/ST Act. The "12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as "1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any . The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or nce under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled - economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the ied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either ot due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled nt of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment Swaran Singh &Ors. v. State through The Court had drawn distinction between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was MANJU 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1352-2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be se by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or frie be an offence since it is not in the public view. The Court held as under: "28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar") when he stood near t which was parked at the gate of the premises. opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been commit and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression "place within public view" with the expression "public place". A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government o (or other local body) or gaonsabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies." 15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered "in any place within public view" is not made out. In the witnesses appended to the charge witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the 4 held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. The "28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar") when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the nly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not onfuse the expression "place within public view" with the expression "public place". A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaonsabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons 15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered "in any place within public view" is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the 4 held that if an offence is committed outside the building en by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are nds) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. The "28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 he car In our was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had ted inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the nly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not onfuse the expression "place within public view" with the expression "public place". A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is r the municipality (or other local body) or gaonsabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons 15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered "in any list of sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the MANJU 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1352-2026 (O&M) 2026 (O&M) building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh, it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge 16. There is a dispute about the which is the subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per respondent No.2 herself. Due to dispute, appellant and others were not permitting respondent No.2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the matter is regarding possession of property pending before the Civil Court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimated or harassed only for the reason that belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 17. In another judgment reported as State of Madhya Pradesh, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104 this Court held that in a case for applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the deceas belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhanced punishment. This Court held that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. The Court held as un "15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and case, the fact that the deceased was belonging to "Khangar"-Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused under section Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable." 18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to 5 building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh, it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet. 16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is the subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per respondent No.2 herself. Due to dispute, appellant and others were not permitting respondent No.2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since r is regarding possession of property pending before the Civil Court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 17. In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2019 SCC OnLine SC this Court held that in a case for applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhanced punishment. This Court held that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. The Court held as under: "15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the deceased was belonging to Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the and therefore, the conviction of the accused under section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable." 18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the 5 building. The offence is alleged to have taken place . Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh, it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building possession of the land which is the subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per respondent No.2 herself. Due to dispute, appellant and others were not permitting respondent No.2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since r is regarding possession of property pending before the Civil Court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, she Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2019 SCC OnLine SC this Court held that in a case for applicability of ed belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhanced punishment. This Court held that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged to "15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the deceased was belonging to Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the and therefore, the conviction of the (2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the such caste. In the MANJU 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1352-2026 (O&M) 7. judgment in SCC 662, reiterated the preposition of law laid down in the case of Verma(supra the alleged offence is required to be occurred in full public view. 8. is that the Respondent the telephone while speaking with the son of the complainant. This clearly implies that the complainant herself was neither privy to the conversation nor did she personally hear the alleged caste information regarding the incident was conveyed to her by her son. 9. impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, which has rightly relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble the present revision petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. 10. July 23, 2026 manju Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: 2026 (O&M) present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3 out." Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in its latest judgment in Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi v. State of Odisha &Anr. reiterated the preposition of law laid down in the case of supra) and held that in order to attract the provisions of SC/ST Act, the alleged offence is required to be occurred in full public view. Admittedly, in the present case, as per the FIR, the allegation Respondent No. 2 used certain caste the telephone while speaking with the son of the complainant. This clearly implies that the complainant herself was neither privy to the conversation nor did she personally hear the alleged caste information regarding the incident was conveyed to her by her son. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, which has rightly relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Accordingly, the present revision petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. July 23, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No 6 present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in its latest Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi v. State of Odisha &Anr., 2025 (1) reiterated the preposition of law laid down in the case of Hitesh in order to attract the provisions of SC/ST Act, the alleged offence is required to be occurred in full public view. Admittedly, in the present case, as per the FIR, the allegation used certain caste-related abusive words over the telephone while speaking with the son of the complainant. This clearly implies that the complainant herself was neither privy to the conversation nor did she personally hear the alleged caste-related abuses. At best, the information regarding the incident was conveyed to her by her son. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, which has rightly relied Supreme Court of India. Accordingly, the present revision petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE 6 present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the (1)(r) of the Act is not made Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in its latest 2025 (1) Hitesh in order to attract the provisions of SC/ST Act, Admittedly, in the present case, as per the FIR, the allegation related abusive words over the telephone while speaking with the son of the complainant. This clearly implies that the complainant herself was neither privy to the conversation s. At best, the In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, which has rightly relied Supreme Court of India. Accordingly, MANJU 2026.07.27 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document