Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 475 (UTT)

Ankit Saini v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-08-16

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. The applicant, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the cognizance / summoning order dated 22.02.2016 and entire proceedings of criminal case no. 127 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 427 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, relating to police station Bhadrabad, District Haridwar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 2. Learned counsel for applicant confined his prayer only to the extent that no offence under Section 3 (1) (X) of SC/ST Act is made out against the applicant, even on bare reading of the contents of the first information report. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that even if the contents of the FIR be conceded to be true, no ingredients of Section 3 (1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are prima facie made out against the applicant, in the sense that informant nowhere said that the accused himself was not a member of SC/ST community and he used those words intentionally in order to humiliate him (victim) in a place within the public view knowing it that he (victim) belonged to a community of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, as was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2008) 12 SCC 531 . 4. On perusal of documents on record, foundation of offences under Sections 323, 504 and 427 of IPC is laid against the applicant. No prima facie case under Section 3 (1) (X) of SC/ST Act is made out against him (applicant), in view of Gorige Pentaiah’s case (supra), wherein, in paragraph no. 6, it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Court 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. 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.” 5. Prima facie, offences under Sections 323, 504 and 427 of IPC are made out against the applicant, but the offence under Section 3 (1) (X) of the SC/ST Act is not made out in view of Gorige Pentaiah’s ruling. 6. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, partly allowed to the extent of exclusion of Section 3 (1) (X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 only. In other words, the applicant shall face the trial for the offences for which charge-sheet was submitted against him, but not under Section 3 (1) (X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is therefore, dismissed in so far as summoning of the applicant for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code is concerned. 7. Since present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being disposed of without issuing notice to respondent no. 2, therefore, respondent no. 2 is granted liberty to move for recall of this order, if he feels aggrieved with the same.