Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 643 (MP)

Komal Tyagi v. State of M. P.

2015-06-25

B.D.RATHI

body2015
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This revision petition has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 11.9.2014 passed by the Special Judge [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989], Bhind (M.P.) in SST No.40/2014 whereby the charge under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity “the Special Act”) and other charges under the provisions of Indian Penal Code have been framed. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that the incident occurred on 7.6.2013. Prompt report was lodged by complainant Karu Kori against the petitioners and other co-accused persons. Allegations were made that he was beaten by the accused/petitioners after hurling abuses denoting to his caste by saying “Kuriawale”. 4. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by Shri Bahirani, learned counsel for the petitioners, that petitioners do not want to press this petition so far as it relates to the order of framing of charge for the offence punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. The only prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act is not made out. No ingredients of such offence exist in the present case. It is also submitted that if the entire facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned in the FIR are taken into consideration even then no case for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act is made out. 5. It is further submitted by the petitioners’ learned counsel that only by uttering the words of caste during the course of abusing, no offence is made out under section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act. To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble apex Court in the matter of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in, (2008)12 SCC 531 , and the judgments rendered by this Court in the matter of Abdul Tanveer Khan v. State of M.P. reported in, 2015(II) MPWN 26 and Shankarlal v. State of M.P., reported in ILR (2013) M.P., 2457. 6. Prayer made by the petitioners’ learned counsel has been opposed on the ground that entire ingredients for framing of charge for the offence punishable under the provisions of Special Act are available. 6. Prayer made by the petitioners’ learned counsel has been opposed on the ground that entire ingredients for framing of charge for the offence punishable under the provisions of Special Act are available. The order impugned herein is well merited and no interference in it is called for. 7. After taking into consideration the facts mentioned in the FIR, it is clear that nowhere it was mentioned that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the opposite party i.e. the petitioners do not belong to the Scheduled Caste or Tribe. Further, nowhere it has been mentioned in the FIR that accused has insulted the complainant with an intent to humiliate him only because of he being a member of scheduled caste or tribe in the public view. Merely utterance of word “Kuriawale” without any intention shall not make out the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act. 8. Accordingly, this revision is hereby partly allowed and the petitioners are discharged from the only offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act. So far as other offences are concerned, the Special Court is directed to remit the matter for trial to the Court of CJM concerned.