Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 198 (MP)

Jagdish v. State of M. P.

2010-02-17

N.K.MODY

body2010
ORDER 1. This is a petition under section 397 CrPC for quashment of the order dated 3.12.09 passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST), Ujjain in Criminal Case No. 165/08 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners for an offence alleged to have been committed under sections 332, 506B of IPC and under section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act. 2. Short facts of the case are that the respondent filed the challan against the petitioners and other co-accused persons for the offence punishable under sections 353, 294, 506/34 of IPC and under sections 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act. After securing the presence of petitioners and others co-accused charges were framed against the petitioners as stated above, against which present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that no offence is made out against the petitioners either under sections 332, 506-B of IPC or under section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act. It is submitted that at the most charge could have been framed against the petitioners under section 351 of IPC. It is submitted that for making out a case under section 506-B of IPC mere threats will not constitute an offence. For this contention learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Sharad Dave v. Mahesh Gupta, 2005 (2) Vidhi Bhaswar 152 = 2005 (II) MPLR 71. Learned counsel further submits that for making out a case under section 332 of IPC it is necessary that the accused has caused obstruction to a public servant in discharge of his public duties. So far as offence under section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST is concerned, it is submitted that there should be an intention to insult or humiliate a member of SC/ST category and mere utterance of word "Chamar" without any intention to insult or humiliate will not constitute the offence punishable under the said section. So far as offence under section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST is concerned, it is submitted that there should be an intention to insult or humiliate a member of SC/ST category and mere utterance of word "Chamar" without any intention to insult or humiliate will not constitute the offence punishable under the said section. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Amir v. State of M.P. 2004 (2) Vidhi Bhaswar 204 = 2004 (3) MPLJ 141 wherein a Divisional Bench of this Court has held that making out a case under the provisions of SC/ST Act the offence must be committed against the complainant on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caster or Tribe. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Jasrath Singh v. State of M.P. 2005 (4) MPLJ 363 wherein this Court has held that to constitute an offence it is necessary that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view and merely calling a person from the caste name without proof of any intention of insulting or humiliating do not constitute the offence under section 3 (1) (x). Lastly reliance is placed on a decision in the father of Anil Kumar Pandey v. Daulat Prasad 2005 (II) MPWN 133 = 2005 (3) MPHT 463 wherein this Court has observed that merely utterance of word "Chamar" without any intention to insult or humiliate a member of SC/ST category, it would not make out offence under section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act. 4. On the strength of aforesaid decisions, learned counsel submits that the petition filed by the petitioners be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that after going through the evidence which was collected by the prosecution during investigation, learned Court below has framed the charges against the petitioners, which requires no interference. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioners be dismissed. 6. From perusal of the record it is evident that the complainant Amritlal is Sarpanch of the village and is from SC/ST category. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioners be dismissed. 6. From perusal of the record it is evident that the complainant Amritlal is Sarpanch of the village and is from SC/ST category. Allegation against the petitioners was that the meeting of Panchayat was called 1.2.08 and the same was adjourned as the quorum was not complete. Since the meeting was adjourned, therefore, petitioners abused the complainant. There is absolutely no evidence to show that any obstruction was caused by the petitioners to the complainant who was the public servant in discharge of his public duties. Similar there is no evidence whereby it can be said that the petitioners threatened the complainant. The alleged incident also took place after the meeting was adjourned, therefore, it cannot be said that at the time when the dispute took place between the parties the complainant was discharging his public duties. It is true that in the statement of the witnesses it has come that the petitioners have abused the complainant, but there is nothing to demonstrate that the words which were spoken while abusing was with the intention to insult or humiliate the complainant on account of caste. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners is quashed with a direction to the trial Court to reframe the charges after taking into consideration the evidence on record collected by the prosecution during investigation and also keeping in view the position of law. 8. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of.