Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 341 (UTT)

Sandeep Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-09-10

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - Petitioners seek quashing of an FIR No. 2 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 436 IPC and 3 (1) (X) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'), Patwari Circle Ajmer Walla-4, District Pauri Garhwal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. 3. According to the FIR the petitioner Sandeep Singh abused and set the cowshed/stable of the informant ablaze, he also pelted stones on the informant and her son Ajay Kumar; he dragged the informant, due to which, the informant sustained injuries on her knees; the petitioner Sandeep Singh also abused the informant with caste colour remarks. Earlier also, the petitioner Sandeep Singh had done such acts, which were subsequently compromised. At the end of the report, it is also recorded that the petitioner Mahesh Kumar was also with the petitioner Sandeep. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that FIR is false; there is no date and time mentioned in it; petitioner Mahesh belongs to the scheduled caste category, therefore, offences under the Act cannot be made out against him; a place for horses and cow was set to be ablaze, but, it does not attract the provisions of Section 436 IPC. It is also argued that since concerned Revenue Inspector has lodged the report under heinous offences, he would not assess the role played by individual petitioner and could, in all probabilities, make arrest in a mechanical manner. 5. It is true that in the FIR, categorically the date of incident and time is not mentioned. Strangely, the concerned Revenue Officer also did not ask as to at what time, the incident occurred. A date is mentioned at the beginning of the report i.e. 27.07.2020 and the report was given on 25.08.2020. Whether the incident occurred on 27.07.2020, even it is not clear, but, the FIR categorically narrates the incident and the role of petitioner Sandeep, in particular. 6. On behalf of the petitioners, the caste certificate of petitioner Mahesh Kumar is filed, which reveals that he belongs to Scheduled Caste Category and if it is so, definitely, the provisions of the Act would not be applicable in his case. 6. On behalf of the petitioners, the caste certificate of petitioner Mahesh Kumar is filed, which reveals that he belongs to Scheduled Caste Category and if it is so, definitely, the provisions of the Act would not be applicable in his case. It is also true that in FIR, it is not categorically averred as to what was done by the petitioner Mahesh Kumar, but, it is also true that the FIR discloses the role of petitioner Sandeep in detail. 7. Application of Section 436 IPC is also a matter for scrutiny during investigation because not only in dwelling house but if a place for custody of property is destroyed by fire, the provisions of Section 436 IPC would come into play. What was the structure of stable/cowshed would become relevant consideration, to ascertain as to whether the provisions of Section 436 IPC would be applicable or not and this task is also with the Investigating Officer of the case, therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in the case. 8. It is also argued that the Investigating Officer may make mechanical arrest. In fact, in the instant case, it is more a job of Investigating Officer to ascertain the facts. He has to ascertain by investigation as to what was done by the petitioners and particularly by each one of them. He should also examine the applicability of the Act because if petitioner Mahesh belongs to the scheduled caste category, definitely, the provision of the Act will not be attracted in his case. Therefore, this Court has no doubt that the Investigating Officer would first ensure the complicity of each of the petitioners in any of the offences and once, it is done, he would further weigh in his mind, the need for arrest. 9. XXX XXX XXX 10. With the above observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.