Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 291 (MP)

Daduram Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2021-03-02

VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN

body2021
ORDER : Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the registration of FIR as Crime No. 99/2020 at Police Station Jaithari, District Anuppur for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that, respondent No. 2 lodged report at Police Station Jaithari, District Anuppur against the petitioner alleging therein that, respondent No. 2 was raising a boundary wall along with her mother-in-law Shyamabai, husband Santosh Kol and one person Mukund Kol. The petitioner appeared on the spot and raised objection. He said that why they are raising boundary wall in his land and started hurling filthy words. He also assaulted them by means of iron rods. When respondent No. 2 Sadhna Kori, her husband Santosh, her mother-in-law Shyamabai and her neighbour Mukund Kol tried to rescue, petitioner along with other persons started beaten them. Thereafter respondent No. 2 reported the matter and lodged FIR against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the land belongs to the petitioner on which respondent No. 2 tried to raise the boundary wall. There was a civil dispute registered as Civil Suit No. 26-A/2013 between Sant Kumar, S/o. Daduram Rathore vs. Gudda, S/o. Besahu Kori and another (i.e. between the son of the present petitioner and the husband of respondent No. 2), in connection with the disputed land, on which the boundary wall was being raised by respondent No. 2. In the said civil suit, learned 1st Additional District Judge, Anuppur passed a decree in favour of the petitioner and directed the family of respondent No. 2 not to interfere in the possession of the land, which is in title of the petitioner. Despite that, the respondent No. 2 unnecessarily creating dispute and after encroaching the land tried to construct the boundary wall. The petitioner only raised an objection and stopped them to create the boundary wall, on which the respondent No. 2 party started quarrel with the petitioner and lodged a false report. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the had not utter any derogatory words pertaining to the caste of respondent No. 2. The petitioner only raised an objection and stopped them to create the boundary wall, on which the respondent No. 2 party started quarrel with the petitioner and lodged a false report. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the had not utter any derogatory words pertaining to the caste of respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that, respondent No. 2 is a member of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and she wrongly took the advantage of her caste and registered a false case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PO) Act. In such circumstances, prayer is made to quash the FIR lodged against the petitioner, so also all the criminal proceedings arising out of that FIR. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner was well in knowledge that respondent No. 2 belongs to 'Kori' caste, which falls under SC/ST Castes, despite that, petitioner utter filthy words. It is further submitted that petitioner also demolished the boundary wall constructed by respondent No. 2, in such circumstances ingredients of aforementioned offence are made out against the petitioner, therefore, prayer is made for dismissal of this petition. 6. Learned panel Lawyer for the State also supported the objection raised by respondent No. 2. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Also perused the copy of judgment dated 19.12.2014 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Anuppur in Civil Suit No. 26-A/2013, annexed as A-5 (Sant Kumar S/o. Daduram Rathore vs. Gudda S/o. Besahu Kori). After perusal of the judgment, it is reflected that, respondent No. 2 and petitioner are neighbours and there was dispute of ownership and possession of land situated at Khasra No. 798/2 admeasuring 0.184 hectare of which disputed area is 0.164 hectare and new number of that disputed land is Khasra No. 798/2/Kha. Learned Civil Court after hearing both the parties passed decreed in favour of the son of present petitioner and the family of respondent No. 2 was categorically prohibited to make any interference in the possession of the above mentioned disputed land. It is prima facie reflected from the documents filed along with this petition and documents collected during investigation that, the respondent No. 2 along with her family members was raising a wall on the disputed land. 8. Perused the FIR lodged by respondent No. 2. It is prima facie reflected from the documents filed along with this petition and documents collected during investigation that, the respondent No. 2 along with her family members was raising a wall on the disputed land. 8. Perused the FIR lodged by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2, in the said FIR, nowhere alleges that the petitioner utter any derogatory words pertaining to her caste or lowered down her image at public place. It is prima facie reflected that, the boundary wall which was demolished by the petitioner was being constructed over the land which was already declared in favour of the petitioner and the family members of the respondent No. 2 was prohibited to interfere in possession of the petitioner. No doubt, in the FIR, the offence registered under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PO) Act prima facie not made out. So far as offence with regard to inflicting simple injuries is concerned, there are prima facie evidence available against the petitioner for that offence. 9. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. The State of Uttarakhand and Another, reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710, discussed the ambit scope of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PO) Act and held that, if ingredients of the above mentioned act is not made out, there is no need to mention the offence in the FIR or in charge-sheet to that extent and quashed the charge-sheet to that extent. 10. In the case in hand, a case was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(v) of the SC/ST Act. The provisions of Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) reads as under:- 3(1)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; 3(1)(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view; 3(2)(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property [knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member], shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine; 11. Perused the FIR. Perused the FIR. No doubt in the FIR it is nowhere mentioned that, intentionally the petitioner humiliate the respondent No. 2 within the public view or used any derogatory words pertaining to her caste in public. Hence, ingredients of both the offence, i.e. 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) are not made out. 12. So far as offence under Sections 294, 323, 506 r/w 34 are concerned, perused the statement of witnesses, so also other documents and MLC report collected during investigation. Kandhai Kol, Shyama Bai and Sadhna Kori received injuries and their X-ray were also taken. No doubt there are sufficient ingredients of Section 294, 323 and 506 of IPC are available against the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, there are some ingredients of the offence of IPC are available, but the offence of any section of SC/ST (PO) Act are not made out against the petitioner. In such circumstances, case registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PO) Act deserves to be and is here quashed. 14. Consequently, the FIR to that extent is quashed, the investigation in respect of the other offence will be continued. 15. With the aforesaid, the petition is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above. Interlocutory application, if any is pending, the same stands disposed of.