Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 208 (UTT)

UMESH KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-04-05

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) The applicants, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the proceeding of the Criminal Case No. 17 of 2011 State Vs. Umesh Sharma & Ors. U/S 506 I.P.C and Section 3(1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Dehradun. 2. After arguing the application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. at some length, learned counsel for the applicants confined his prayer only to the extent that no offence under Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the applicants, even on bare reading of the contents of the first information report. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that even if the contents of the FIR be conceded to be true, no ingredients of Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are prima facie made out against the applicants, in the sense that informant nowhere said that the accused themselves were not the member of SC/ST and they 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. Learned counsel for the State agreed to such submission of learned counsel for the applicants. 5. On perusal of documents on record, foundation of offence under Section 506 of IPC is laid against the applicants. No prima facie case under Section 3(1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against them (applicants), 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. 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. 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.” 6. Prima facie, offence under Section 506 of IPC is made out against the applicant, but the offence under Section 3 /10 of the SC/ST Act is not made out in view of Gorige Pentaiah’s ruling. 7. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, partly allowed to the extent of exclusion of Section 3(1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 only. In other words, the applicants shall face the trial for the offence for which charge-sheet was submitted against them, but, not under Section 3(1) of 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 theapplicants for the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code is concerned. 8. Since present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being decided without proper notice to the private respondent, therefore, liberty is granted to him to move for recall of this order, if he feels aggrieved with the same. 9. At this stage of dictation, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the State has decided to withdraw from prosecution and therefore learned Magistrate be directed to decide the pending application under Section 321 Cr.P.C as per law at an early date. Learned Deputy Advocate General has no objection to such innocuous prayer. 10. 9. At this stage of dictation, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the State has decided to withdraw from prosecution and therefore learned Magistrate be directed to decide the pending application under Section 321 Cr.P.C as per law at an early date. Learned Deputy Advocate General has no objection to such innocuous prayer. 10. Learned Magistrate at Dehradun is directed to decide the pending application under Section 321 Cr.P.C., at an early date, in accordance with law.