Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1255 (ALL)

Charitra v. State of U. P.

2016-04-06

OM PRAKASH VII

body2016
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII,J. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings arising out of charge sheet dated 20.5.2014, case crime no. 389 of 2014 (State of U.P. Vs. Charitra @ Abishek Pratap Singh) under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1) (X) S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989) (hereinafter shall be denoted as "S.C./S.T. Act"), P.S. Kailiya, District Jalaun, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai. Further prayer has been made to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that cognizance taken in the present matter is illegal. Proceeding against the applicant cannot go on. Offence under Section 3(1) (X) S.C./S.T. Act is not made out in the present matter. The Court concerned did not consider this fact and illegally proceeded with the trial against the applicant for the offence under Section 3(1) (X) S.C./S.T. Act. Learned counsel for the applicant at this stage has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. And others, 2009 (64) ACC 430 and argued that it is mandatory for the complainant to allege the caste of the accused person in the First Information Report itself. In absence of such averment trial under the Special Act for the offence under Section 3(1) (X) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is illegal. 4. Learned A.G.A. argued that informant has mentioned in the First Information Report itself that accused person started beating making caste aspersion. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. this fact has also been disclosed. Thus the submission raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is not acceptable. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record. 6. Before adverting to the fact of the present case, it will be useful to quote the relevant para no. 9 of the Gorige Pentaiah case (Supra) which is as under: "In the instant case, the allegation of respondent No.3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.5.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. 6. Before adverting to the fact of the present case, it will be useful to quote the relevant para no. 9 of the Gorige Pentaiah case (Supra) which is as under: "In the instant case, the allegation of respondent No.3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.5.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No. 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No. 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law." 7. If the ratio laid down in Gorige Pentaiah case (Supra) is taken into consideration in context with the present matter, it is evident that in the First Information Report, it is clearly mentioned that accused person abused to the informant making caste aspersion with the intention to insult her. Caste of the accusedpplicant is also disclosed in the First Information Report as Gurjar. The Court dealing with the matter has to see only a prima-facie case at this stage. The essential ingredients to constitute a prima-facie case at this stage are available in the First Information Report and in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 8. Thus, the cognizance taken in the matter could not be termed to be illegal. The applicant does not get any help with the law laid down in Gorige Pentaiah case (Supra). Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 3(1) (X) S.C./S.T. Act are available in the present matter. Thus the submission raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is not acceptable. The application being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.