Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 174 (MP)

Maharaj Singh v. State of M. P.

2014-02-10

B.D.RATHI

body2014
ORDER 1. With the consent of the parties, matter is finally heard. 2. This revision petition has been preferred under section 397 read with 401 of CrPC. 3. Being aggrieved from the order of framing charge dated 27.12.2012 passed by Special Judge, (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Guna in Special Trial No.276/2012 (State of M.P. v. Maharaj Singh and others) whereby charges under sections 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (ii) of Prevention of Atrocities Act were also framed along with the offence punishable under sections 323/34, 294 and 506B of IPC. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that if entire case of prosecution is taken into consideration in its totality even then no case is made out against the petitioners under sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(ii) of Prevention of Atrocities Act. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that charges framed for the offence punishable under sections 294, 323 and 506B of IPC are not being challenged by them. The only submission for quashment of charge framed under sections 3(1) (x) and 3(1) (ii) of Prevention of Atrocities Act. 5. Prayer is opposed by Public Prosecutor. 6. As per prosecution case, incident was occurred on 19.9.2012 in noon and on the same day in the evening at about 6:00 pm FIR was lodged at Police Station AJK, District Guna by the complainant, Sukhlal against the present petitioners. As per the facts mentioned in the FIR, complainant Sukhlal belongs to schedule caste. In front of his house one big pit was situated. Maharaj Singh came there along with his spade and try to fill that pit and also started abusing him by saying the word “Chamra Wale”. Other accused persons came there, thereafter, Sukhlal was beaten by them her wife Munnibai was pushed by Maharaj Singh, brother of Harnam was also beaten. 7. On bare perusal of entire prosecution case, it is clear that quarrel took place because the dispute of pit. For framing the charge under section 3 (1) (x) Prevention of Atrocities Act, it is necessary to abuse the complainant with an intention to insult or humiliate and also this act was done within the public view. 8. 7. On bare perusal of entire prosecution case, it is clear that quarrel took place because the dispute of pit. For framing the charge under section 3 (1) (x) Prevention of Atrocities Act, it is necessary to abuse the complainant with an intention to insult or humiliate and also this act was done within the public view. 8. In FIR it was not mentioned that complainant was abused to insult or humiliate only because he belongs to schedule caste and secondly it was also not mentioned that at the time of incident persons were present there and they saw and heard the entire incident. Though, it was mentioned that after commission of offence, witnesses Nanda and Kashiram reached on the spot. So in the considered view of this Court the ingredients of this offence under section 3 (1) (x) of Prevention of Atrocities Act is not fulfilled even after taking into consideration the prosecution case in its totality. 9. Now so far as the offence under section 3 (1) (ii) of Prevention of Atrocities Act is concerned, it is also not made out. As per this provision the ollowing act is punishable under this provision: “acts with intent to cause injury, insult or annoyance to any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by dumping excreta, waste matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in his premises or neighbourhood”. 10. In this case neither excreta, waste matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance was dumped by the petitioners/accused persons. Therefore, no offence under section 3 (1) (ii) of Prevention of Atrocities Act is made out. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioners are hereby discharge for the offence under sections 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (ii) of Prevention of Atrocities Act. 11. Trial Court is directed to remand the case to the Court of CJM for trial for remaining charges. 12. Petitioners are also directed to remain present before the trial Court on 4.3.2014 and thereafter, before the Court of CJM as directed by Special Court. 13. Accordingly, this revision is allowed.