The Kerala High Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with an order rejecting the discharge plea of a woman accused of humiliating a co-worker by using her caste name during a workplace meeting.
The court made it clear that, at the stage of framing charges, even the statement of the aggrieved person alone can be sufficient to proceed with trial if it discloses a prima facie offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The ruling came in a criminal appeal filed by the sole accused, Reshmi Saseendran, against an order of the Special Court for SC/ST cases in Ernakulam.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the incident took place around 4 pm on March 31, 2023, during a meeting held in an open space in front of the Bharat Services Facility Management Office. The office is located on the ground floor of the Trans Asia Cyber Park building near Infopark Phase-2 in Ernakulam.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Orders Release of Adult Trafficking Victim, Says She Cannot Be Detained Against Her Will
The defacto complainant alleged that the accused publicly insulted her by calling her by her caste name in the presence of other staff members. Based on this complaint, police registered a case for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
During the proceedings before the Special Court, the accused sought discharge, arguing that the available materials did not make out a case strong enough to frame charges. The Special Judge, however, dismissed the plea on November 10, 2025, holding that a prima facie case existed.
Challenging that order, the accused approached the High Court. Her counsel argued that apart from the complainant’s version, the statements of other witnesses, particularly the second witness, did not attribute any clear overt act to the accused.
Read also:- Delhi HC Dismisses Election Petition Against Manish Sisodia Over Campaigning Claims, Affidavit Disclosure
It was contended that when supporting witnesses do not corroborate the allegation, continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.
The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposed the appeal and maintained that the complainant’s statement itself disclosed all the essential ingredients of the offences alleged.
Court’s Observations
Justice A. Badharudeen carefully examined the records, including the statement of the defacto complainant. The court noted that the complainant had specifically alleged that the accused abused her by using her caste name in public view, in the presence of cleaning staff.
Read also:- Bar Associations Do Not Discharge Public Functions, Says Delhi High Court While Dismissing Appeal
Explaining the legal position, the court observed that for an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, there must be an intentional insult or intimidation by a non-member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, with the intent to humiliate a member of such community in public view.
“The statement of the aggrieved person would prima facie disclose the ingredients for the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s),” the bench observed, adding that the law does not require a large number of witnesses at this stage.
Justice Badharudeen further pointed out that-
“the evidence of a solitary, wholly reliable witness would suffice,” and the absence of detailed allegations in other witness statements cannot by itself justify a discharge.
Read also:- Environmental Lapse Exposed: MP High Court Flags Thousands of Units Operating Without Consent
The court also reiterated the settled principle that while considering a discharge application, the court’s duty is only to see whether a prima facie case or a strong suspicion exists to frame charges, not to assess the truthfulness of the allegations in depth.
Decision
After applying these principles, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the Special Court’s order. Holding that the materials on record were sufficient to proceed, the court dismissed the criminal appeal.
As a result, the accused will now face trial before the Special Court for offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2018.
Case Title:- Reshmi Saseendran v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case Number:- Criminal Appeal No. 2319 of 2025
