Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 368 (CHH)

JAGANNATH PRASAD SHARMA v. STATE OF C. G.

2007-06-27

S.K.SINHA

body2007
ORDER Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.:- 1. This is an application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.85/2006, registered at Police Station-Mainpur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for commission of the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Special Act). 2. The brief facts are that on 25.11.2006, an unanimous written report, signed by many villagers, was submitted to the police station- Mainpur alleging that the applicant, who is the Head Master of the local primary school used to dishonor and outrage the modesty of the female students, who are reading in his institution. It was specifically mentioned in the report that the applicant used to press the breast of Ku. Maheshwari D/o Manashram (student of class Vth), Ku. Devwati D/o Phool Singh (student of class IIIrd), Ku. Sukakti D/o Rajeshwar (student of class IInd), Ku. Vidiya D/o Pooran Singh (student of class IIIrd), Ku. Devkumari D/o Sahadev (student of class IVth) and many other students and he also used to put his hands inside their underwear and due to his such behaviour, there is a tension in the village and the students are also not going to the school for studies. On such report, statements of various students, including those named in F.I.R., were recorded, who also supported the above contents of the F.I.R. Among the above students, many belong to special category (Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes) to whom the aforesaid Act applies. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He also argued that prior to the said report, on the report of villagers, making various other allegations, a departmental enquiry was' conducted against the applicant and he was exonerated of the charges framed against him by enquiry report dated 19.2.2004 (Annexure-A/3). He also submitted that this applicant had filed a suit (memo of first appeal filed as Annexure-A/2) for damages against the then Sarpanch and an editor of Dainik Bhaskar News Paper and the relation between the applicant and the villagers was not cordial, therefore, this malafide report has been lodged against the applicant by the villagers. He prays for releasing the applicant on anticipatory bail. 4. He prays for releasing the applicant on anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application. He firstly raised objection in view of Section 18 of the Special Act. On merits, he argued that the unanimous allegations regarding commission of such act by a teacher against the female students should be viewed seriously. There is no question of lodging malafide and false report, as the guardians of small female wards would not use their wards as instrumentalities for redressal of their political or personal grievance in such a manner. 5. In reply to this, learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the ingredients of offence under Section 3(1)(xi) are not made out, therefore, this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. would be maintainable. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of misc. petition as well as the complaint. 7. The law in relation to entertaining the application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. in such offences is well settled. The point raised by the State and learned counsel for the applicant is no longer res intera. It has been held that if the contents of the F.I.R. or the complaint disclose the commission of offence under the Special Act, the Courts would not be justified in entering into a further enquiry by summoning the case diary or any other material as to whether the allegations are true or false or whether there is any preponderance of probability for commission of such an offence. At this stage, the Court cannot examine and scrutinize the record of the case in order to ascertain the veracity of the F.I.R/complaint. At this stage, the Court cannot examine and scrutinize the record of the case in order to ascertain the veracity of the F.I.R/complaint. The provisions of section 18 of the Act, 1989 put a complete bar against the entertainment of an application for anticipatory bail where prima facie the contents of the F.I.R. disclose the ingredients of the commission of the offence under the Act of 1989 which is apparent from the perusal of the section itself and thus the Court at the most would be required to evaluate the F.IK itself with a view to find out if the facts emerging there-from taken at their face value disclose the existence of the ingredients constituting the alleged offence, then the Court would not be justified in entering into an enquiry as to the reliability or a genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint. Please see Satya Prakash Vs. State of C.G.1 & Abdul Abbas Vs. State of Chhattisgarh2. 8. Section 3(1)(xi) of Special Act provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, assault or uses force to any woman belonging to a Schcduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. The Apex Court held in the matter of Vidyadharan Vs. State of Kerala3 that Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act which deals with assaults or use of force on any woman belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to or dishonour or outrage her modesty is an aggravated form of the offence under S. 354 I.P.C. The only difference between S. 3(1)(xi) and S. 354 is essentially the caste or the tribe to which the victim belongs. If she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, S. 3(1)(xi) applies. The other difference is that in S. 3(1)(xi) dishonour of such victim is also made an offence. 9. If she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, S. 3(1)(xi) applies. The other difference is that in S. 3(1)(xi) dishonour of such victim is also made an offence. 9. After going through the contents of the F.I.R., I am of the opinion that present is a case, in which, on the basis of the F.I.R. itself, prima facie the offence under the Special Act appears to have been made out, therefore, in view of Section 18 of the said Act, this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. would not be maintainable. 10. Without commenting on the merits of the case, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. It is made clear that the discussions made above are only for the purposes of disposal of this petition and it shall not come in the way while dealing with the matter of the applicant under other provisions of law. Petition Rejected.