Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 84 (UTT)

SONU @ YOGENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-02-02

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the charge sheet dated 27.06.2016 and the cognizance order dated 12.08.2016 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in connection with Special Sessions Trial No.07/2016, under Sections 323, 452, 506 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, relating to Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar. 2. Learned counsel for applicants confined his prayer only to the extent that no offence under Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act is made out against the applicants, even on bare reading of the contents of the first information report. He further submits that the applicants are ready to face trial under Indian Penal Code. 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)(X) 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 members of SC/ST community 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. On perusal of documents on record, foundation of offences under Sections 323, 452 and 506 of IPC is laid against the applicants. No prima facie case under Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act is made out against the 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. 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, 452 and 506 of IPC are made out against the applicants, 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 applicants shall face the trial for the offences for which charge-sheet was submitted against them, 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 applicants 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. 8. Urgency application IA No.691 of 2017 also stands disposed of.