Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1110 (RAJ)

Naveen Shanker Johari v. State of Rajasthan

2012-05-03

NISHA GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 20.1.2012 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Ajmer whereby charges have been framed against the present petitioner for the offences under Section 3(1) (viii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. The short facts of the case are that respondent no.2- complainant has filed the complaint against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act alleging therein that the petitioner has induced his wife Saroj and some cheques and property papers have been taken from them. Thereafter, to settle the dispute, the complainant-respondent issued the cheque dated 6.8.2009 of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The accused promised to return the entire property documents and the cheques signed by the wife of respondent no.2. Thereafter, the present petitioner refused to return back the property documents and cheques and lodged the false complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent. On this, the complaint has been forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. and the police filed a challan. The trial court has framed the charges against the present petitioner assuming that the present petitioner has falsely lodged a complaint against respondent no.2 and it amounts to an offence under Section 3(1) (viii) Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The only contention of the present petitioner is that the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is still under consideration before the competent court and at this stage it cannot be said that the false or vexatious complaint has been filed and hence the proceeding under Section 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Act could not be continued against him. 4. The contention of the respondent is that after investigation, a charge-sheet has been rightly submitted and after perusal of the charge-sheet, the learned trial court has rightly framed the charges against the present petitioner. 5. The relevant provisions of Section 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Act reads as under: "3. Punishment for offences of atrocities-(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. 5. The relevant provisions of Section 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Act reads as under: "3. Punishment for offences of atrocities-(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. - (viii) institutes false, malicious or vexatious suit or criminal or other legal proceedings against a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;" 6. A bare perusal of the above provisions goes to show that to initiate a prosecution for the above offence, it is necessary that a criminal proceeding should be instituted against a member of Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe, which is false, malicious and vexatious. Unless the criminal proceedings which are initiated against the complainant have not been terminated in his favour, it cannot be conclusively said that the proceedings are false, malicious and vexatious and the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly said that the proceedings initiated against him of the offence under Section 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act are pre-mature and reliance has been placed on the judgment reported in the case of Madan Mohan Sigh v. Bhirgunath Singh and others (AIR 1952 Patna 283) which was a case relating to malicious prosecution and in that case it has been observed as under: "The foundation of the action for malicious prosecution lies in abuse of the process of the Court by wrongfully setting the law in motion and it is designed to discourage the perversion of the machinery of justice for an improper purpose. In order to succeed, the plaintiff must prove that the proceedings were malicious, without reasonable and probable cause, that they terminated in his favour and that he had suffered damage." 7. In order to succeed, the plaintiff must prove that the proceedings were malicious, without reasonable and probable cause, that they terminated in his favour and that he had suffered damage." 7. Further reliance has been placed on the judgment reported in the case of Abdul Rehman and others v. K.M. Anees-ul-Haq [ 2011(10) SCC 696 ] where the apex Court has dealt with the provisions of Section 211 IPC which are placed on similar footing with that of offence under Section 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and It was held as under: "So long as the said proceedings against the respondent under Section 409 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are pending before the competent court it would neither be just nor proper nor even legally permissible to allow paralled proceedings for prosecution of the appellants under Section 211 IPC. The respondent would have a right to move the court concerned for filing a complaint against the appellant under Section 211 at the appropriate stage." 8. Looking at the above, when the proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act are still pending against the respondent, it cannot be inferred that those proceedings are false, malicious or vexatious. Termination of that proceeding in favour of the respondent is essentially a condition precedent to initiate proceedings under Section 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, otherwise no criminal, civil or other proceedings could be initiated against any member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Because, after initiation of every proceeding, the member of Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe will come with the allegation that the proceedings are false, malicious or vexatious and proceedings under Section 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act will be started and it is impossible to initiate any proceeding against the member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The provisions of Section 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Dastes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not enacted to deprive a genuine person to initiate proceedings against the member of above community, rather it has been enacted to protect the person of these communities from false, malicious and vexatious proceedings. 9. The provisions of Section 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Dastes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not enacted to deprive a genuine person to initiate proceedings against the member of above community, rather it has been enacted to protect the person of these communities from false, malicious and vexatious proceedings. 9. Looking at the above, the charges which are framed against the present petitioner are totally misconceived and the prosecution for the offence under Section 3(1) (viii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of the present petitioner under the above circumstances is abuse of process of law and glaring miscarriage of justice and liable to be quashed. 10. In view of the above, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.1.2012 is hereby quashed and the present petitioner is discharged from the offence under section 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.Petition allowed. *******