Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 260 (MP)

Abdul Tanveer Khan v. State of M. P.

2015-03-03

D.K.PALIWAL

body2015
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC being aggrieved with the order of framing charge under section 3(1)(x) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, vide order dated 12.9.2014 in Special S.T. No.57/2012 by the Special Judge, Ratlam. 2. The brief facts are that the complainant has lodged a complaint alleging that on 19.9.2012 at about 9:00 p.m. he was passing in front of house of Forest Ranger Tanveer Khan, then Tanveer Khan came out and after stopping the complainant gave beating and also said “Tu Bhilda Jyada Samazdar Hai”. On raising cries Sumit Kishore, Vijay and Makkubai rushed towards the spot and freed the complainant. The report was lodged. After due investigation charge sheet has been filed. The learned trial Court has framed the charges under sections 341, 323, 506 Part II of IPC and under section 3(1)(x) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Being aggrieved this revision petition has been filed. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel that learned trial Court has committed illegality in framing the charge under section 3(1)(x) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. There is no prima facie material against the applicant for commission of the aforesaid act. Mere calling the complainant by his caste does not constitute an offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Hence prayed for quashing of the charge under section 3(1)(x) of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. Learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the word used by the applicant during the incident prima facie indicates commission of offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, hence there is no scope for any interference. 5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. In the complaint it is mentioned that when complainant passed in front of the house of Forest Ranger Tanveer Khan, he came out and started beating him and told that “Tu Bhilde Jyada Samazdar Hai” and also therened him. As far as the offence under section 3(1)(x) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, it has been defined as under :- “(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent of humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.” 6. As far as the offence under section 3(1)(x) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, it has been defined as under :- “(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent of humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.” 6. From the aforesaid it is clear that there should be an intention to insult or humiliate the member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category. The word “Tu Bhilde Jyada Samazdar Hai” does not indicate that these words have been used with an intention to insult or humiliate the complainant. 7. This Court in the matter of Anil Kumar v. Daulat Prasad, reported in 2005(3) MPHT 463 , wherein the allegation was that “JA BE CHAMARA TERA HISAB HO CHUKA HAI JO DEKHE KAR LENA IS PRAKAR JATIGAR APMAN APSOBDO DWARA KARTE HUE ANAVEDAK NE AVEDAK SE KAHA TUJHE JAN SE KHATM KARVA FIKWA DUNGA”, has held that the aforesaid words have been used without there being any intention to insult or humiliate the member of Scheduled Caste, hence prima facie no offence under section 3(1)(x) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out. Similarly, in the case of Jagdish v. State of M.P., reported in 2011(I) MPWN 61 = 2010(5) MPHT 119 , word “CHAMAR” was alleged to be uttered without any intention to insult or humiliate the complainant, this Court held that no offence is made out. 8. At the stage of framing of the charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence, which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of sections 227 or 228 Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence charge can be framed. 9. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence charge can be framed. 9. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao [2012 AIR SCW 5139], the apex Court considered the scope of sections 227 and 228 of CrPC and held that for framing of charge, a roving enquiry in pros and cons of matter and weighing of evidence as is done in trial is not permissible at this stage. The charge has to be framed if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that accused has committed offence. Thus, even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be framed. 10. Considering that there is no material showing that the words “To Bhilde Jyada Samazdar Hai” were uttered to insult or humiliate the member of the Scheduled Caste, hence, no charge can be framed against the applicant under section 3(1)(x) of SC, St (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 11. In view of the aforesaid the petition is allowed and the charge framed against the applicant under section 3(1)(x) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is hereby quashed. 12. The petition is disposed of accordingly.