Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1091 (MP)

Brajendra Singh Bes v. State of M. P.

2015-10-14

S.K.PALO

body2015
ORDER 1. To invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, the instant petition has been filed under section 482 of CrPC seeking relief to quash the FIR at Crime No.5/2014 registered at Police Station AJK District Datia for the offence punishable under sections 352, 294, 506B and under section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the subsequent criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid crime. 2. The factual matrix of the case are that, the respondent No.2 has lodged a written complaint at Police Station AJK, Datia that on 3.3.2014 at about 10:35 when she was in her (Municipality Datia) office. While she was working on in computer section, at about 10:35 a.m., the petitioner Brajendra Singh Bes, Local Ward Member came in the office and stated her to work within her limit. When she asked what she did, the petitioner abused her by obscene words and also abused her by her caste name and threatened her to make her mind correct and was about to assault her. He also threatened her of her life and to abduct her. Employees of her office saw the incident. 3. On the basis of her written complaint, the Police Azak Datia registered the offence punishable under sections 352, 294, 506B and under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the so-called abuse by the petitioner calling by caste name is only a hoax. No such incident took place. Furthermore, it is argued that the applicant has no intention to humiliate, intimidate or insult the complainant/respondent No.2. Therefore, no offence is made out under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Hence, prayed that the FIR registered at Crime No.5/2014 at Police Station, AJK Datia be quashed to the extent of section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and stated that the petitioner knowing very well that the complainant belongs to Barar caste has deliberately uttered the words in public view and in public place with intention to commit insult, therefore, prayed for rejection of the petition. 6. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and stated that the petitioner knowing very well that the complainant belongs to Barar caste has deliberately uttered the words in public view and in public place with intention to commit insult, therefore, prayed for rejection of the petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, has vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner knew that the complainant/respondent No.2 belongs to Barar caste, the petitioner deliberately with intention to insult and intimidate the petitioner uttered those words in the office which constituted offence punishable under section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 7. Counsel also submitted that charge has been framed, trial is in progress. Therefore, the present petition for quashment of FIR is not tenable. 8. On perusal of the record, it is found that the petitioner had not only intimidated but also abused her by obscene words and threatened her of her life at her office, which is a public place and in public view. 9. The reliance placed by the petitioner in the order dated 23.2.2012 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.4577/2012 and order dated 1.8.2013 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.3240/2013 by a coordinate Bench of this Court are based on different footing. 10. The reliance also placed in Santosh Lodha v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ 2012(1) MPHT 237 ], Shayam Singh @ Dhannu and another v. State of M.P. [ 2006(1) MPLJ 400 ], in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others [2008(5) MPHT 247 (SC)]. In all these cases , it has been held that calling member of SC/ST with intention to insult or humiliate in a place within the public view is certainly offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 but it is to be remembered that whether there was intention to insult or humiliate by using caste name will of-course depends on the context in which it was used. 11. Coming to the present case, the petitioner entered into the office of complainant/ respondent No.2 abused and also called her by her caste name, stating that “ barar wali tera dimag thikane laga dunga” which clearly demonstrate that it was uttered to humiliate intimidated and insult the complainant/respondent No.2. 12. 11. Coming to the present case, the petitioner entered into the office of complainant/ respondent No.2 abused and also called her by her caste name, stating that “ barar wali tera dimag thikane laga dunga” which clearly demonstrate that it was uttered to humiliate intimidated and insult the complainant/respondent No.2. 12. Where the specific allegation in the FIR constitute offence, the Court in a petition under section 482 of CrPC would not embark upon enquiry to come to the occlusion that where such allegation is true or not, where allegation in the complaint prima facie disclose crime of alleged offence, the FIR cannot be quashed. 13. Keeping in view the same, the present petition sans of merits and is hereby dismissed.