Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 4086 (PNJ)

Ramesh And Others v. State Of Haryana And Another

2018-10-11

SURINDER GUPTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Surinder Gupta, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 217 dated 08.07.2013, registered at Police Station Meham, District Rohtak for offences punishable under Sections 148/149/323/506 of Indian Penal Code and 3 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST Act') and order dated 02.06.2014 whereby charges for offences punishable under Sections 323/506/34 and 3 of SC/ST Act were framed against petitioners. 2. Fir No. 217 dated 08.07.2013 was registered on the statement of Pardeep son of Suraj Bhan, wherein he has stated that Gram Panchayat, Mokhra Pana Roze, was constructing the passage which was in use for the last about 100 years. A common passage in front of Dadi Sato and a wall along the Tirsam was being constructed. Gram Panchayat had requested Block Development and Panchayat Officer on 07.06.2013 for demarcation of this passage, which was demarcated by the administration on 28.06.2013 through Tehsildar, Meham. At the time of demarcation, there was no encroachment on this passage. Thereafter some mischievous elements narrowed the passage using JCB machine. Sarpanch of the village is a dalit lady and the aforesaid elements were not allowing construction of the passage. On 07.07.2013, labourers Pardeep, Sanjay, Vinod, Jaiveer Badal, Amit son of Jagdish, mason Pardeep son of Karamvir were doing their job on this passage when at about 11.30 a.m., some mischievous elements belonging to Jaat community, namely, Yogi son of Naresh, Aashish son of Ramesh, Nishat son of Naresh, Ramesh son of Phool Bhag and Ramesh son of Sube Singh attacked the labourers with sharp edged weapons and tamancha (revolver). They started giving beating to them. The wall constructed by them was also demolished and bricks were uprooted. Three bags of building material were also left at the spot. Laxmi Devi was also attributed casteist words with abuses 'chamar, dedh, kamin etc.'. About 10 days earlier these persons had abused Laxmi Devi, sarpanch, and given threat to kill her and made all the labourers run away by threatening to kill them. At that time, the matter was not reported to the police in order to keep amity in the village. However, aforementioned persons kept on threatening and blocking the passage of complainant showing fear of their caste and create terror in the village. They gave threats to get the complainant party killed through criminals. 3. At that time, the matter was not reported to the police in order to keep amity in the village. However, aforementioned persons kept on threatening and blocking the passage of complainant showing fear of their caste and create terror in the village. They gave threats to get the complainant party killed through criminals. 3. The police after investigation presented challan against petitioners, Ramesh son of Sube Singh, Ramesh son of Phool Bhag, Ashish son of Ramesh and Yogender @ Yogi son of Ramesh. The challan was, however, not filed against petitioner, Nishant. On presentation of challan, learned trial Court framed charges for offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST Act against petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners has argued that in the dispute regarding passage between petitioners and gram panchayat, instant FIR has been registered as a counter-blast. A suit for injunction was also filed by petitioners regarding this dispute, which was later withdrawn under a compromise. Before recording of FIR a representation dated 09.04.2013 was moved before Director General of Police, Haryana, expressing apprehension that sarpanch of the village and her husband misbehaved with petitioners. Husband of sarpanch, who is in the police department and was posted at Madhuban, had been performing all the functions ofsarpanch. He forcibly got certain works done on the land of owners (villagers) through department after obtaining grants without their consent, notice or demarcation. He also threatened to falsely involve them under the provisions of SC/ST Act. Similar complaint was also moved to Chief Secretary, Haryana Government on 24.06.2013, copy of which has been placed on file as Annexure P-4. Thereafter, a civil suit was filed seeking the relief of injunction to restrain the State of Haryana, Gram Panchayat, Mokhra Pana Roze and Others from interfering and encroaching upon the land of khasra no. 3393 by raising any construction over it. All this depict that petitioners were already apprehensive that complainant may lodge a false complaint against them so as to implicate them in case under the provisions of SC/ST Act. Their apprehension came true when instant FIR was registered. She has argued that in the instant FIR few casteist words have been mentioned but these have not been specifically attributed to any of petitioners. Their apprehension came true when instant FIR was registered. She has argued that in the instant FIR few casteist words have been mentioned but these have not been specifically attributed to any of petitioners. On perusal of complaint, it is also not made out that sarpanch Laxmi Devi was present at the spot and aforesaid words were attributed to her. No offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act is made out even on perusal of FIR. 5. In support of her contention, learned counsel for petitioners has referred to observations of various High Courts and Hon'ble Apex Court in cases enumerated as follows:- (i) In case of Mukesh Kumar Saini vs. State (Delhi Administration) , (2002) 1 RCR(Criminal) 242, wherein Delhi High Court has observed that mens rea is an essential ingredient under Section 3 (1) (x)of the SC/ST Act. Merely calling a person by caste would not attract the provisions of this Act and there must be specific accusation alleged against each of the accused. (ii) In case of Dr. Onkar Chander Jagpal and another vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another , (2012) 1 RCR(Criminal) 931, a coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that mere utterance of offending words will not constitute an offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act in the absence of intention of mens rea to humiliate the member of Scheduled Caste in public view. (iii) In case of Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of A.P. and Others , (2008) 4 RCR(Criminal) 171, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in para 6 of the judgment as follows:- "6. 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. 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." (iv) In case of Asmathunnisa vs. State of A.P. and another , (2011) 11 SCC 259 , Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in para 10 of the judgment as follows:- "10. The aforesaid paragraphs clearly mean that the words used are "in any place but within public view", which means that the public must view the person being insulted for which he must be present and no offence on the allegations under the said section gets attracted if the person is not present." 6. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has argued that the police has recorded the statement of complainant, sarpanch and labourers, who were working at the spot and have stated that they were threatened and beaten by petitioners. There is no reason to disbelieve their testimonies at this stage. Admittedly, petitioners were having grouse because of construction being carried out by gram panchayat in the passage. They had also filed suit for injunction but later on had withdrawn the same. Offences under Sections 323 read with Section 34 IPC and 506 read with Section 34 IPC are prima facie made out against the accused. Provisions of Section 3 (1)(x) SC/ST Act are also attracted against accused as they have not only spoken casteist words against sarpanch of the village Laxmi Devi, who is Scheduled Caste lady but have also used threatening language against her. Though in the FIR it has not been mentioned that sarpanch Laxmi Devi was present at the spot but in her statement recorded by the police, she has specifically stated about her presence at the spot at the time of occurrence, which proved that she was insulted in public view due to attribution of casteist words like 'chamar, dedh and kamin' etc. 7. From the submissions of learned counsel for petitioners, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent no. 7. From the submissions of learned counsel for petitioners, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent no. 2, it makes out that this case as two aspects. Firstly, of threatening and giving beating to labourers and mason, who were working in the street; and secondly, attributing casteist words to lady sarpanch of the village, who belongs to Scheduled Caste. 8. Learned State counsel has submitted that during investigation statements of complainant and labourers, who were working at the spot were recorded, who have stated that they were given beating by petitioners and were also threatened to be killed if they continue with their work of construction in the street and there is no reason to disbelieve their statements at this stage. 9. On perusal of order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak framing charge against petitioners, I find that he has also taken note of the evidence while framing charge under Section 323/506 read with Section 34 IPC, which calls for no interference at this stage. It appears that learned trial Court has not taken note of the fact that offence under Section 3 of SC/ST Act is not disclosed in this case for the reason that the casteist words as mentioned in the FIR have not been specifically attributed to any of petitioners. As per recital in the FIR, casteist words like 'chamar, dedh and kamin etc.' were used but nothing has been stated that as to which of the accused used these words or whether these words were used to intentionally insult or intimidate with intent to humiliate sarpanch Laxmi Devi. On perusal of FIR, it is not even made out that sarpanch Laxmi Devi was present at the spot at the time of alleged occurrence. As per observations in cases of Mukesh Kumar Saini (supra) and Dr. Onkar Chander Jagpal (supra) as discussed above, the basic ingredients of the offence are missing and continuance of proceedings against petitionees for offence punishable under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act and to compel them to face rigmarole of criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law. It is usually seen that such type of allegations are attributed in the FIR just to aggravate the offence. It is usually seen that such type of allegations are attributed in the FIR just to aggravate the offence. Even if casteist words have been mentioned in the FIR but without attributing the same to any of the petitioners it cannot attract mens rea of petitioners to intentionally insult the sarpanch. In case sarpanch Laxmi Devi had been present at the time of occurrence, this fact must have found specific reference in FIR. In these circumstances, framing of charge against petitioners by the trial Court for offence punishable under Section 3 of SC/ST Act, is not sustainable. 10. In view of my above discussion, this petition is partly allowed. Instant FIR as well as order of learned Special Judge, Rohtak framing charge against petitioners for offence punishable under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act are quashed. However, petitioners shall face trial for offence punishable under Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC in accordance with law.