Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1324 (RAJ)

Kartar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2004-09-14

N.N.MATHUR

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - Both the revision petitions are directed against the order dated 27.4.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Churu by which the learned Judge has discharged the accused respondents No. 2 to 4 of offence u/ss. 182, 193 & 177 IPC but has taken cognizance for the offence u/sec. 3(1)(ix) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in short "the Act". 2. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 497/2004 has been filed by petitioner-complainant Kartar Singh aggrieved of the part of the order, whereby respondents Smt. Lovely, Smt. Chanchal and Shiv Kumar have been discharged of offence u/ss. 182, 193 and 177 IPC. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 304/2004 has been filed by accused persons Smt. Lovely, her mother Smt. Chanchal and brother Shiv Kumar for framing charge against them for the offence u/s. 3(1)(ix) of the Act. 3. The background facts leading to the instant petitions are that on 13.2.1995, a Maruti Car met with an accident which resulted into death of one Pradeep Kumar. One of the accused Shiv Kumar reported the matter at the Police Station, Fatehpur on 14.2.1995. On this information, police registered the FIR case No. 9/1995 for the offence u/ss. 304-A, 279, 337 and 336 IPC. After investigation, police forwarded the Final Report for the reason that the vehicle was being driven by deceased Pradeep Kume himself. On 7.4.1995, father of deceased Pradeep Kumar viz; Kartar Singh lodged an FIR at Police Station, Ratangarh alleging inter alia that his deceased son Pradeep Kumar and Smt. Lovely were living as husband and wife, though no marriage had taken place between them in accordance with the Hindu Rites. it was later-on disclosed to the accused persons that his son Pradeep Kumar belonged to the Scheduled Caste. He had given an impression that he belonged to the Jat Community at the time of the alleged marriage. Thus, they planned to finish him. It is further alleged that his son Pa Kumar was murdered as a part of the conspiracy among the accused persons. It is further alleged that the accused persons had taken the dead body of deceased giving a false information to the public authorities and thereby committed an offence u/sec. 182/177 IPC. After investigation, police forwarded the Final Report on 27.5.1995 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh. It is further alleged that the accused persons had taken the dead body of deceased giving a false information to the public authorities and thereby committed an offence u/sec. 182/177 IPC. After investigation, police forwarded the Final Report on 27.5.1995 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh. The police found that the complaint was made with an oblique motive inasmuch as while Smt. Lovely was claiming job on compassionate ground on account of death of her husband Pradeep Kumar, the complainant party was claiming job on account of death of his son. The Final Report was accepted by the learned Magistrate by order dated 16.1.1996. After the Final Report was accepted, the complainant Kartar Singh filed a protest petition. Strangely, while the Final Report was submitted in the case, on 22.9.1998 the Additional S.P filed a charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offence u/ss. 182, 193 and 177 IFC and Section 3(1)(ix) of the Act. Learned Special Judge by order dated 5.7.2000 transferred the matter to the court of learned ACJM, Ratangarh, as the offences were triable by the magisterial court. The said order was challenged before this Court by way of revision being S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 504/2000. This Court by order dated 19.5.2003 sent the matter back to the Court of learned Special Judge who, after hearing the parties, has discharged the accused persons of offence u/ss. 182, 193 & 177 IPC but has taken cognizance for the offence u/sec. 3(1)(ix) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. It is contended by Mr. Garg, learned counsel appearing for petitioner-complainant Kartar Singh that the learned Special judge has committed error in discharging the accused persons of offence u/ss. 182, 193 & 177 IPC. I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel. The learned trial Court has discharged the accused persons of offence u/ss. 182, 193 & 177 IPC in view of the prohibition contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. to the effect that a complaint for such offence can be filed in writing by the public servant concerned. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, the complaint has not been filed by a public servant. Similarly, for the offence under Section 193 IPC, in view of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, a complaint can be filed in writing by the court alone. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, the complaint has not been filed by a public servant. Similarly, for the offence under Section 193 IPC, in view of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, a complaint can be filed in writing by the court alone. Thus, in my opinion, there is no illegality in discharging the accused persons of offence Less. 182, 193 & 177 IPC. 5. In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 304/2004, petitioners Smt. Lovely, Smt. Chanchal and Shiv Kumar have challenged part of the order, whereby charge has been framed against them for the offence u/sec. 3(1)(1x) of the Act. The relevant provision reads as follows: "3. Punishments for offences of atrocities. - (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. (ix) gives any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe." 6. In the instant case, deceased Pradeep Kumar and accused Smt. Lovely were living as husband & wife. There is also evidence to show that deceased Pradeep Kumar introduced himself as a person belonging to Jat Community. He used to write his name in full as "Pradeep Kumar Sauran Jar)". Thus, the accused persons cannot be said to be aware of the fact that deceased Pradeep Kumar was the person belonging to the SC/ST. The caste Sauran" finds place in the agreement of marriage. In view of this, it cannot be said that the accused persons gave a false or frivolous information to the effect that deceased Pradeep Kumar was the husband of first petitioner Smt. Lovely. In view of this, the learned Magistrate has committed error in framing charge against the accused petitioners of the offence u/sec. 3(1)(ix) of the Act. 7. Consequently, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 497/2004 "Kartar Singh v. State of Rajasthan" stands dismissed. The S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 304/2004 "Smt. Lovely & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan" is allowed. The order of the learned Special Judge, (SC/ST) Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Churu dated 27.4.2004 framing charge against the petitioners for the offence Ws. 3(1)(ix) of the Act is quashed & set aside. *******