Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 908 (MP)

NAWAL s/o SH. PATIRAM PRAJAPATI v. STATE OF M. P.

2010-09-07

ANIL SHARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT : 1. Arguments heard. 2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 19-4-2010 passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Gwalior, whereby charge for the offence punishable under section 325 of Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been framed against the petitioner. 3. On perusal of the challan papers, it is clear that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he has beaten the complainant who belongs to Scheduled Caste. The complainant has made a statement recorded under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code that on the basis of his caste the applicant uttering the word 'Chamarwale Tu Kya Karlega'. That too has not been supported by any witness including the son Surendra of the complainant and the other witnesses, who also belonging to the same caste. On the other hand, witnesses have stated that there was a dispute between applicant and complainant about grazing of cattle. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a judgment of this High Court in the matter of Komal Chand Kachhawaha vs. State of M. P., 2001 M.P.W.N. 29, in which it as been held that if there is no initial case charge under section 3(1)(x), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be framed on subsequent development. On the basis of which framing of charge under section 3(1)(x) of S.C. S.T. Act has been quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited a judgment in the matter of Ratanlal vs. State of M. P., reported in 1994 M.P.W.N. 154 in which it has been held that if there is no nexus between utterance of word "khatik" and the intention to insult or annoy the complainant - offence under section 3(1)(x) of S.C.S.T. Act is not made out. 6. In the present case, there is no allegation about the dispute of grazing of cattle to the field of petitioner-accused. Therefore, offence under section 3(1)(x) of S.C.S.T. Act is not made out. Learned trial Court has erred in framing the charge under section 3(1)(x) of S.C.S.T. Act. Therefore, the impugned order dated 19-4-2010 passed by the trial Court insofar as it relates to framing of charge under section 3(1)(x) of S.C.S.T. Act is hereby quashed. The trial Court shall reconsider the matter and take further action in accordance with law. 7. Learned trial Court has erred in framing the charge under section 3(1)(x) of S.C.S.T. Act. Therefore, the impugned order dated 19-4-2010 passed by the trial Court insofar as it relates to framing of charge under section 3(1)(x) of S.C.S.T. Act is hereby quashed. The trial Court shall reconsider the matter and take further action in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.