Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 270 (UTT)

Ramchandra v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-08-29

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. The revisionist proposes to challenge an order dated 07.05.2022, passed in Misc. Case No.252 of 2021, Ramchandra vs. Sanjay Kumar and others, passed by the court of Special Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar (for short, “the case”). By it, an application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) has been rejected. 2. A Delay Condonation Application (IA) No.1 of 2022 has also been filed. 3. The grounds for delay is that the revisionist due to jaundice, could not take the action on time and the revision is delayed by 18 days. 4. Having considered the ground, this Court is of the view that the delay in filing the revision may be condoned and the matter may be heard on admission. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the revision is condoned. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. According to the application Section 156(3) of the Code filed by the revisionist, he was working in a company named S.I. Auto Pack Unit-2, SIDCUL, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short, “the complaint”). On 27.09.2019, he was dismissed from the service along with 09 other persons, 05 were re-employed. When the revisionist and 04 other persons approached the respondent no.2, who is Manager in the company to ascertain, as to why they have not been re-employed. According to their application they were abused with Caste coloured remarks and pressurized to withdraw their complaint and not to pursue the matter in the labour court. It also records that, in fact, on 17.12.2019, on a public road, the private respondent abused and did maar peet with the revisionist and used Caste coloured remarks. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is a poor person, who belongs to a Scheduled Castes category. Firstly, he was removed from the service without having any cause and when he wanted to know the reason, he was abused with the Caste coloured remarks, not only this, it is argued that, in fact, on 17.12.2019, he was assaulted and again abused on a public place. Therefore, it is argued that prima facie offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act”) is made out and the court below committed an error in declining for investigation. 8. Therefore, it is argued that prima facie offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act”) is made out and the court below committed an error in declining for investigation. 8. It may be noted that the court below dismissed the application on the ground that the alleged incident did not take place at any public place. 9. Mere assertion in an application under Section 156(3) of the Code does not mandate a Magistrate to direct for investigation. In the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2015) 6 SCC 287 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed these aspect and observed that, “The duty cast on the learned Magistrate, while exercising power under Section 156(3) CrPC, cannot be marginalised.” 10. In the case of Priyanka Srivastava (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in the case of Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa (2013) 10 SCC 705 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that, “where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order.” 11. Order for investigation made under Section 156(3) of the Code, so as to unearth the truth and collect the evidence. It is specific case of the revisionist that since, he belongs to a particular Caste, he was abused and insulted for that reason. In order to attract the provisions of the Act, it is not always necessary that the offence could have been committed at a public place, what is required particularly, for application of the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) is, “in any place within public view”. It is not public place, the place may be private, but it should be in public view. That is one aspect of the matter. 12. In the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, (2020) 10 SCC 710 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the requirement of application under Sections 3(1)(r)of the Act and the object of in acting the Act. That is one aspect of the matter. 12. In the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, (2020) 10 SCC 710 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the requirement of application under Sections 3(1)(r)of the Act and the object of in acting the Act. In para 13, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:- “13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that Respondent 2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that Respondent 2 is a member of Scheduled Caste.” 13. In the case of Hitesh Verma (supra), the parties were disputing over a piece of land and in that dispute, it was alleged that one of the parties was abused with Caste coloured remarks. Finally, in para 18, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:- “18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.” 14. In the instant case, it is the case of the revisionist that he was removed from service. He had approached firstly the Manager, respondent no.1, when he was abused and in para 4 of the application, the revisionist has stated that, in fact, he was also pressurized to withdraw his complaint and not to proceed the matter in the Labour Court. The dispute is not because the applicant belongs to a particular Caste. It is the revisionist, according to him, who visited, the respondent no.1 to raise the issue with regard to his removal from service. 15. Having considered, this Court is of the view that whatever has been alleged, it is not only because the revisionist belongs to a particular Caste, the revisionist has a complaint against the management including the private respondents, they were approaching them. In fact, it appears that in order to pressurize the management, the application under Section 156(3) of the Code has been filed. Prima facie no cognizance offence is made out, as such and the court below though on different grounds, rightly rejected the application. There is no substance in the revision and it deserved to be dismissed at the state of admission itself. 16. The revision is dismissed in limine.