Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 785 (JHR)

Ashim Kumar Chatterjee v. State of Jharkhand

2013-07-04

R.R.PRASAD

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for complainant and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.367 of 2006 including the order dated 5.2.2007 whereby and whereunder 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 against the petitioner. 3. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the complainant needs to be taken notice of. 4. It is the case of the complainant that complainant's father, permanent employee of Central Coalfield Limited, posted as Sr. U.D.C in the office of the Project Officer, Kathara Colliery died on 22.4.2006. The petitioner, who happened to be the Project Officer at the relevant point of time was having grudge with the father of the complainant, as the father of the complainant was a member of Scheduled Caste and therefore, the amount of gratuity was not paid to the complainant by the petitioner. Since the amount of the gratuity was not being paid to the complainant, the complainant along with his Uncle came to the official chamber of this petitioner on 10.10.2006 for making request of payment of gratuity. When such request was made, the petitioner asked them to get out from there and then abused them in the following manner: “MAI TUM CHAMARO SE TANG AA GAYA HUIN. TERA BAAP BHI NICH ADMI THA, USHE MAIN BAHUT SAHAN KIYA, ACHHA HUWA SALA MAR GAYA” 5. It has been further alleged that the petitioner also used filthy language in presence of several staffs and person present in the office, who had assembled near his chamber on hearing the sound of shouting. 6. Further it has been alleged that the petitioner, the then Project Officer was duty bound to pay the amount of gratuity to the complainant but he out of malice and grudge did not pay the same deliberately. On such allegation, a complaint was lodged as Complaint Case No.367 of 2006. 7. On holding enquiry, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was taken against the petitioner. That order is under challenge. 8. Mr. On such allegation, a complaint was lodged as Complaint Case No.367 of 2006. 7. On holding enquiry, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was taken against the petitioner. That order is under challenge. 8. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the allegation made in the complaint does not constitute offence in terms of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 9. In this respect, it was submitted that the entire allegations are actuated with malice as the petitioner did not make payment of the gratuity for the reason that family members of the deceased employee had not vacated the quarter which had been allotted to the deceased employee by the Central Coalfield Limited and, therefore, where the allegations are actuated with malice, the entire criminal case warrants to be quashed, in view of the decision rendered in a case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]. 10. Learned counsel further submits that whatever abusive language have been alleged to have been used by the petitioner, that has been alleged to have been hurled in the official chamber and thereby it is never either in public view or within public hearing and hence, no offence is made out under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 11. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that from the reading of allegation made in paragraph 5, it would appear that abuses were constituting offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, though were hurled in the official chamber but it was within the hearing of other persons and, therefore, it certainly constitute offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In that event, entire criminal prosecution or the order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed. 12. In the context of the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, one needs to take notice of the allegation made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint petition which reads as follows: “5. In that event, entire criminal prosecution or the order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed. 12. In the context of the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, one needs to take notice of the allegation made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint petition which reads as follows: “5. That on 10.10.2006, the complainant with his uncle Sri Ramanand Ravidas, met the accused in his official chamber at Kathara to make a request to make payment of the gratuity amount of the deceased father. The accused without hearing him started shouting in loud voice saying “get out from here” MAI TUM CHAMARO SE TANG AA GAYA HUIN TERA BAAP BHI NICH ADMI THA, USHE MAIN BAHUT SAHAN KIYA, ACHHA HUWA SALA MAR GAYA” The accused delivered other filthy language to the complaint in presence of several staffs and person present in the office who assembled to and near his chamber on hearing the shouting sound. 6. That the accused delivered and hurled aforesaid assaulting words with intention to insult the complainant in the view of public. The complainant felt humiliated, insulted and intimidated on account of aforesaid gesture of the accused and he came back heavy hearted to his home.” 13. From its reading, it does appear that the abusive language which, according to the complainant, does constitute offence under the Act seems to have been used in the official chamber whereas subsequent to that, it has been alleged that the petitioner also used other filthy language which appears to have been made in presence of several staffs present in the office but in absence of wordings of abuses, it can hardly be said to have had ingredients for constituting offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act but so far language used which, according to the complainant, constitute offence under the Act never seems to have been used within the public view or within the public hearing and if it is not within the public view or within the public hearing, no offence is made out under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, even if it is accepted that the petitioner did use language as has been given in the complaint. The said provision reads as follows: “3(1)(x)-intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place with public view;” 14. It is never the case of the complainant that he was abused by the petitioner in his official chamber in presence of others. Thus, the alleged abusive language never seems to have been used within public hearing or public view. 15. Furthermore, the allegation made in the complaint does indicate that this petitioner did not make payment of the amount of gratuity on account of death of the father of the complainant which seems to have been paid to the petitioner subsequent to retirement of this petitioner when an order was passed to make adjustment of the rent of the quarter from the amount of gratuity. This fact does indicate that the petitioner may not have released the amount of gratuity to the complainant for the reason that they were occupying the quarter even after the death of the father and therefore, submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the allegations made in the complaint are actuated with malice cannot be ignored. 16. It be recorded that it has been well settled that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, a complaint or first information report can be quashed, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others (supra). 17. Thus, on the facts as stated above, one can come to the conclusion that the allegations made in the complaint not only are actuated with malice but at the same time, it does not constitute any offence in terms of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 18. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.367of 2006 including the order taking cognizance dated 5.2.2007 is hereby quashed. In the result, this application is allowed.