Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1452 (ALL)

Suman Gupta & Another v. State of U. P. & Another

2010-05-03

A.K.ROOPANWAL

body2010
Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal, J.:- This application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing the proceedings of S.T. No. 409 of 2008 under sections 332,353,504,506 IPC and 3(I)(X) SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Shahar, District Bijnor as well as order dated 1.7.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.1, Bijnor, whereby the application for discharge moved by the applicants under section 227 of Cr.P.C. was rejected. 2. I have heard Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Ramesh Chandra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. and perused the record 3. It appears from the record that an FIR was lodged by the opposite party No.2 which was investigated upon and the charge sheet was submitted against the applicants. It was alleged in the FIR that the complainant on the relevant date and time was working as Basic Shiksha Adhikari at Bijnore and was present in this office, when the applicant No.1 Smt. Suman Gupta, who was Assistant Teacher in Poorv Madhyamic Vidhyalaya, Jhalra, Block Mo. pur Devmal, Bjnor entered into his office with her husband Ravi Gupta and 4-5 unknown persons in connection with her transfer and misbehaved with him. 4. When the case came at the stage of charge, an application under section 227 of Cr.P.C. was moved for the discharge on the ground that no offence under section 3(I)(X) of SC/ST Act was made out. This application was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 1.7.2008. 5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that neither in the FIR nor in the statement of the complainant recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., it was said that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste community. Only after recording of the statement of other witnesses, the statement of complainant was again recorded, in which he stated that he belongs to secheduled castes community. He further argued that there is no evidence on record to show that a language derogatory to caste was used by the applicants against the opposite party No.2 and thus no offence under section 3(I)(X) of SC/ST Act was made out and the applicants should have been discharged from the provision of this Act and by not doing so, a wrong order has been passed which is liable to be set aside. 6. 6. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that it appears from the record that at a belated stage, this fact came on the record that opposite party No.2 belongs to Schedule castes community. Therefore, on this ground also the application should have been allowed. 7. So far as this fact is concerned that no evidence was collected to the effect that applicants ever used language derogatory to caste in that regard, I feel that it is not required for constituting that offence which is punishable under section 3(I)(X) of SC/ST Act. 8. The question as to whether the act alleged to have been done by the applicants was intended to humiliate the opposite party No.2 as member of scheduled castes community or not is a question to be seen at the trial stage. At the time of framing of the charge, the evidence prima-facie showed that opposite party no.2 is a member of scheduled castes community who was working as Basic Shiksha Adhikari and was insulted being scheduled caste man and the acts were done in public view. Thus to me, it appears that a perfect prima-facie case under section 3(I)(X) of SC/ST Act was made out and therefore there was no ocassion for the trial court to exonerate the applicants from the provisions of the aforesaid offences. 9. In view of the above, there is no merits in this petition and it is dismissed.