Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 36 (UTT)

Kundan Singh Bathyal v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-01-08

ALOK SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : Alok Singh, J. (1) The applicants, by means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the order dated 29.09.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh in Criminal Case No.243 of 2011, State vs. Bhupendra Singh Bathyal & others, under Sections 324, 504, 506, 147 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the SC/ST Act). The applicants also seek to quash the proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case. (2) Perusal of the record reveals that vide order dated 09.08.2010 passed in C482 No.1045 of 2006 (Annexure-5 to the petition), the coordinate Bench of this Court quashed the proceedings under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act as against the applicants (i.e. Kundan Singh Bathyal & another); vide order dated 07.06.2011 passed in C482 No.489 of 2011 (Annexure-6 to the petition), the Coordinate Bench quashed the proceedings under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act as against the applicant-Naveen Chandra Pathak; and vide order dated 07.06.2011 passed in C482 No.490 of 2011 (Annexure-7 to the petition), the Coordinate Bench quashed the proceedings under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act as against the applicant-Bhupendra Singh Bathyal. It was held by the Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid orders that the complainant has nowhere alleged that the applicants-accused were not the members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes; and nowhere, it was mentioned that accused applicants intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate the complainant and with the knowledge that the complainant belonged to a community of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The aforesaid view of the Coordinate Bench was based on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & others, (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 446. (3) Vide impugned order dated 29.09.2012, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh has committed the matter to the Special Sessions Court by giving an observation that prima facie the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is also made out. (4) The afore-mentioned order dated 09.08.2010 passed in C482 No.1045 of 2006 and order dated 07.06.2011 passed in C482 No.489 of 2011 & C482 No.490 of 2011 have attained finality, in as much as the same was not assailed, as has been informed by learned counsel for the parties. (4) The afore-mentioned order dated 09.08.2010 passed in C482 No.1045 of 2006 and order dated 07.06.2011 passed in C482 No.489 of 2011 & C482 No.490 of 2011 have attained finality, in as much as the same was not assailed, as has been informed by learned counsel for the parties. It is well settled that the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India and the decisions of the High Court are binding on the subordinate courts and authorities or Tribunals under its superintendence throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. It is well settled that the decision of a High Court will have the force of binding precedent only in the State or territories on which the court has jurisdiction. (5) In the light of aforesaid discussion, the Chief Judicial Magistrate should not have observed that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was, prima facie, made out. It was specifically mentioned in the orders passed in earlier round of litigation that so far as the rest of the offences were concerned, the trial court shall proceed against the accused in accordance with law. (6) So far as the rest of the offences punishable under Sections are concerned, I do not find any abuse of process of court in this case and no flagrant injustice is going to be caused to the applicants in the case. It is well settled principle of law that the Court would interfere with a summoning order or proceedings of a criminal case only in rarest of cases where the offence is not made out or there is gross injustice to the accused-applicants. It is also settled position of law that this Court, while hearing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not sitting as a trial court & this Court cannot take into consideration the plausible defence of the accused during the course of hearing. I am of the view that the factual aspect of this case needs evidence to be adduced by the parties before the court concerned and the trial court after considering the evidence on record will decide the matter in accordance with law. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the accusation of the applicants at this stage, as any judgment rendered by me would amount to pre-trial. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the accusation of the applicants at this stage, as any judgment rendered by me would amount to pre-trial. (7) As a consequence thereof, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed. Impugned order is interfered with and is hereby quashed with regard to the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act only. So far as the rest of the offences, the applicants-accused will face the trial.