Agarawal Associates — Supreme Court of India  |  Legal Intelligence Platform

APEX DIGESTapexdigest.in
Argument Lab/For Petitioner/Residential House Not 'Place Within Public View' — (2026) INSC 468
For PetitionerCriminal Premium

Residential House Not 'Place Within Public View' — (2026) INSC 468

The essential ingredient of 'any place within public view' under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act is not satisfied when the alleged incident occurred inside a residential house where no…

Gunjan @ Girija Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) — (2026) INSC 468

Core Argument

The essential ingredient of 'any place within public view' under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act is not satisfied when the alleged incident occurred inside a residential house where no independent members of the public were present. The FIR must be quashed at the threshold.

Key Precedents

  • Swaran Singh v. State (2008) 8 SCC 435 — Established the distinction between 'public place' and 'place within public view', and held that a private place can be within public view if accessible to public gaze.
  • Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710 — Held that when the incident occurs within the four walls of a building and no member of the public is present, the requirement of 'place within public view' is not satisfied.
  • Karuppudayar v. State (2025 SCC OnLine SC 215) — Reiterated that to be a place 'within public view', the place should be open where members of the public can witness or hear the utterance.
  • State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 — Laid down that if the contents of the FIR, taken at face value, do not make out any case against the accused, the FIR is liable to be quashed.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework...

Premium Argument

Subscribe to access the full argument framework with precedent mapping and submission structure.

Subscribe to AccessAlready a subscriber? Sign in
Argument SimulatorAnnual Plan Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans only.

Upgrade to Annual Plan

Disclaimer: This argument framework is published by Agarawal Associates for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Adapt all submissions to the specific facts of your matter. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in