Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 732 (UTT)

RAHMAT ALI v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2010-09-29

DHARAM VEER

body2010
JUDGMENT This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the charge sheet, summoning order and the entire proceedings in criminal case no. 5826/2005 (case crime no. 48 of 2005), State Vs. Rahmat Ali, u/s 504/506 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989 {hereinafter to be referred as the SC/ST Act}. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 3. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 – Ilam Singh lodged an FIR on 15.7.05 against the petitioner stating therein that he is a member of schedule caste. On 30.6.2005, the petitioner had taken the son of complainant, namely, Naresh and other boys i.e. Pappu, Chjootu, Chatra Pal, Mukesh and Ravindra for filling up the manure in the bags. All these boys filled up 180 bags on manure but thereafter, they felt scorching on their hands and other parts of their bodies where the said manure bags had touched. After cleaning those parts with water, it started blistering and water came out from those parts, for which they were admitted in the government hospital. On 15.7.2005, when the complainant met with the petitioner, he uttered caste indicated words and also directed them not to meet him again otherwise they would face the same consequence as his son and others have faced. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and after that charge sheet was filed on the basis of which the trial court vide order dated 28.10.2005 summoned the petitioner u/s 504/506 IPC and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that none of the offences, on which the petitioner has been summoned by the trial court, are made out against the petitioner. I find force in this argument. Before further discussion it is pertinent to mention Section 504 IPC which reads as under :- 504. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that none of the offences, on which the petitioner has been summoned by the trial court, are made out against the petitioner. I find force in this argument. Before further discussion it is pertinent to mention Section 504 IPC which reads as under :- 504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace – Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 5. However, on a bare perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent no. 2, it does not reveal in any way that the petitioner insulted the respondent no. 2, thereby giving provocation to him, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, and as such the necessary ingredients of Section 504 IPC are not made out against the petitioner. 6. Now, coming to Section 506 IPC, which provides for punishment for criminal intimidation, it is necessary to mention the definition of criminal intimidation which has been provided under Section 503 IPC, which also reads as under :- “Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation”. 7. However, on perusing the complaint filed by the respondent no. 7. However, on perusing the complaint filed by the respondent no. 2 against the petitioner, it does not reveal that the petitioner threatened the complainant with any injury to his person, reputation or property with intent to cause alarm to him, or to cause him to do an act which he was not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the executing of such, threat, and as such, the necessary ingredients of criminal intimidation too are not made out and accordingly, the offence punishable u/s 506 IPC is also not made out against the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that even the provisions of the SC/ST Act are not attracted in this case as in the entire FIR, it was nowhere been mentioned that the petitioner was not the members of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimated with intent to humiliate the respondent no. 2 within public view, hence the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is also not made out. I find force in this argument put forth on behalf of the petitioner. On a bare perusal of the FIR itself, there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner was not the member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe community and he intentionally insulted or intimated with intent to humiliate respondent no. 2 within public view. It is settled law that when the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the petitioners to face the criminal trial under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law. Reliance is placed upon a Hon’ble Supreme Court verdict in the case of “Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & others reported in (2009) 1 SCC (Cri.) 446”. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment is reproduced as below :- “In the instant case, the allegation of Respondent 3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.05.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. State of Andhra Pradesh & others reported in (2009) 1 SCC (Cri.) 446”. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment is reproduced as below :- “In the instant case, the allegation of Respondent 3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.05.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (Respondent 3) was intentionally insulted or intimated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate Respondent 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.” 9. Perusal of the FIR lodged by the respondent no. 2 shows that the complainant has nowhere alleged that the petitioner is not the member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community and he intentionally insulted or intimated with intent to humiliate the respondent no. 2 within public view. As such, the Court is of the view that as against the petitioner, since the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act are not made out, as such the criminal trial with respect to the said offence is also liable to be quashed. 10. For the reasons as aforementioned, the instant C482 petition is allowed. The proceedings pending before the court below are hereby quashed. Interim order dated 06.06.2006 is vacated accordingly.