Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 244 (RAJ)

Gopal Lal Yadav v. State Of Rajasthan

2021-01-30

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR No.0253/2020 dated 14.05.2020 registered at Police Station Sanganer Sadar, District Jaipur (South) under Section 143, 452, 341, 323 & 427 of IPC and Sections 3¼1½¼n½ ,oa 3¼1½¼?k½ of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989"). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners confined his submissions to quashing the FIR qua the offences under the provisions of the Act of 1989 only. Drawing attention of this Court towards the FIR wherein the allegations are that the members of the complainant party were insulted and abused within the four walls of their residence, learned counsel submitted that since the alleged offence was not committed within "public view", the provisions of the Act of 1989 are not attracted. He submitted that the FIR does not reveal that any member of the public was present at the time of alleged incident as well and hence, the FIR in question deserves to be qushed qua the offences under the Act of 1989. Learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Hitesh Verma versus The State of Uttarakhand & Anr., (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 710, in support of his submissions. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the act leading to offence under the Act of 1989 was committed by the petitioners within the "public view" as is apparent from the site plan and statements of independent prosecution witnesses, members of public; namely, S/shri Mukesh Prajapat, Girraj Sharma and Suresh Meena and hence, the prayer made is not tenable. They relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Swaran Singh & Ors. Versus State through Standing Counsel & Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 435 , in support of their contentions. They, therefore, prayed that the petition filed by the petitioners be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 5. In the FIR, the allegation is that the members of the complainant party were abused and insulted by the accused-petitioners entering into their house; but, it does not reveal that the incident did not occur within "public view". 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 5. In the FIR, the allegation is that the members of the complainant party were abused and insulted by the accused-petitioners entering into their house; but, it does not reveal that the incident did not occur within "public view". If the offence is committed under Section 3(l)(r)(s) under the Act of 1989 within the compound wall of the house of the complainant; but, in open place therein, such as lawn or verandah or passage or any such other place though, inside the compound wall; but, open to the "public view", it cannot be said that no offence under the Act of 1989 is made out as the offence has taken place within the house of the complainant. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India has, in case of Swaran Singh (supra), held as under:- "28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a "Chamar) when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression place within public view with the expression public place. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies." 6. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies." 6. From a perusal of the site plan as well as the statements of the prosecution witnesses; members of the public namely, S/shri Mukesh Prajapat, Girraj Sharma and Suresh Meena, it is apparent that the incident has occurred just inside the compound wall of the house of the complainant abutting the public way in "public view." 7. In these circumstances, contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be countenanced. 8. Resultantly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.