Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1333 (PNJ)

Premdeep Singh v. State of Punjab

2009-08-05

HARBANS LAL

body2009
JUDGMENT Harbans Lal, J. - This petition has been moved by Premdeep Singh under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 115 dated 27.07.2007 under Section 341/506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity, the Act) registered in Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran along with all consequential proceedings arising out of said FIR. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the above-mentioned FIR has been registered against the petitioner and his brother Birinder Singh. However, during investigation, he was found to be innocent and challan was not presented against him. From the contents of the FIR, no case is made out against the petitioner as the ingredients for making out a case under the provisions of the Act are missing. This case has been registered with political vendetta against the petitioner. The complainant in his statement has stated that the co-accused Premdeep Singh has said to him that you have voted for Virsa Singh of the Akali Dal and now asking to put stamps from him. The petitioner party is the supporter of the Congress Party and immediately after the Akali Party formed the Government in Punjab and the Akali MLA won from the constituency of the village of the petitioner, this case has been registered against the petitioner as he has not voted to Akali candidate in his village. It is settled law that the provisions of the Act would only be invoked, if the alleged occurrence/incident took place in any place within public view. Secondly, it must have been mentioned that the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community and the accused belongs to the non- Scheduled Caste community. Thirdly, it should have been mentioned that the accused persons have the knowledge that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community. In the present case, the above-mentioned ingredients are missing. This case has been registered by the police promptly and without conducting a reasonable and fair inquiry to know the truth regarding this occurrence. This shows that the police was under pressure and, therefore, the petitioner and his brothers were named. That otherwise also no injury has been received by the complainant, even though, there are allegations that he was confined in the house of the petitioner and had been tied with a rope. This shows that the police was under pressure and, therefore, the petitioner and his brothers were named. That otherwise also no injury has been received by the complainant, even though, there are allegations that he was confined in the house of the petitioner and had been tied with a rope. The story seems to be improbable in the normal course of nature and in these premises, this FIR alongwith consequential proceedings arising out of the same, may be quashed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with a good deal of force that on reading the allegations in the FIR carefully, it emerges out that the alleged occurrence took place inside the house of the petitioner, whereas the offence under Section 3 of the Act shall be deemed to have been made out, if the non-Scheduled Caste insults or intimidates member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to humiliate in any place within public view and thus, prima-facie no offence under the said Section is made out. The learned State Counsel could not controvert this contention in a successful manner. Section 3 of the Act insofar as is relevant for the decision of this case reads as under :- (3) Punishments for Offences of atrocities. -- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, - (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; 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." 5. It has been manifested in plain words in the above language that firstly the person whosoever is alleged to have committed the offence under the provisions of this Act should not be a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and secondly, he ought to have insulted or intimidated a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to humiliate him/her at public place within public view. In re : Manohar M. Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 (1) RCR(Criminal) 537, the FIR under the Act was registered. Caste of accused or of complainant was mentioned in it. In re : Manohar M. Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 (1) RCR(Criminal) 537, the FIR under the Act was registered. Caste of accused or of complainant was mentioned in it. It was held that if the caste of the complainant and/or the accused is not contained in the body of FIR, it is fatal. The FIR was quashed. In re : Gorkhi Ram and another v. State of Haryana and another, 2006 (4) RCR(Criminal) 356, the accused went to the house of the complainant, who was a Scheduled Caste and abused the complainant and his family, used derogatory remarks against him by calling him by his caste name. The entire occurrence had taken place within the bounded area of the house of the complainant and not in any place within public view. It was held that no offence under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out. The complaint was quashed. 6. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, the occurrence took place inside the petitioners house. In the FIR, Annexure P.1, it has been mentioned that "Who (referring to the petitioner) has said after taking the form that you (complainant) have voted in favour of Virsa Singh Akali and want to have stamp from us. You kutyia churia go otherwise would get insulted. I demanded forms, which he has torn. I again said, why you have torn the forms, then he said kutyia churia go from there, otherwise you would not go after getting slapping." A careful delving into the FIR would reveal that it is absolutely silent about the castes of the complainant or the petitioner/accused. Furthermore, axiomatically, there is nothing to show that the petitioner- accused has called the complainant by his caste name. To add further to it, the occurrence having taken place within the four walls of the petitioners house, the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) reproduced above in verbatim hereinbefore are not satisfied. 7. In view of the preceding discussion, FIR No. 115 dated 24.07.2007, Annexure P.1 as far as it relates to Section 3 of the Act is hereby quashed. It is made clear that this FIR remains intact insofar as Sections 341/506 of Indian Penal Code are concerned. Disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.