Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 85 (ALL)

Viresh Singh v. State of U. P.

2023-01-09

SHAMIM AHMED

body2023
JUDGMENT Shamim Ahmed, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, learned AGA and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of the present appeal under Section 14A (1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 the appellants have prayed for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 9.3.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Complaint Case No. 242 of 2019 (Smt. Prema alias Ramguni v. Rakesh Singh and others) under Section 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act and the proceedings of the said complaint case. 3. In short, the facts of the case are that Prema @ Ramguni wife of Patiram, resident of village Ram Nagar, Police Station- Ramkot, District Sitapur preferred an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Sitapur alleging therein on 16.08.2019 at about 9 PM the appellants entered into the house of the complainant and started abusing the complainant and her husband and also assaulted her husband. On hearing the noise, the sons and daughters came and rescued. The appellants also abused their sons and used caste aspersions. The appellants also assaulted her sons and and daughter Baby, who was pregnant. When all the family persons started raising alarm, the appellants left the spot. The aforesaid incident was brought to the notice of the police of Police Station-Ramkot but on account of influence of the appellants, the police did not help them. Thereafter, an application about the aforesaid incident was given to the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:5716 through registered post on 26.08.2019 and also met the Superintendent of Police but no action was taken. Under compelling circumstances, the applicants filed the complaint in the court. 4. On the aforesaid complaint, the learned Sessions Judge passed an order dated 25.9.20219 registering the same as a complaint case. After recording of statement under Section 200 CrPC, statement of Patiram and Bebi, the learned court below passed the impugned order dated 9.3.2021 summoning the appellants under the aforementioned sections. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the complaint has been moved with malicious intention as when the appellants came to know that the respondents are destroying their trees by pouring harmful chemical, the appellants have reported the matter to the police. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the complaint has been moved with malicious intention as when the appellants came to know that the respondents are destroying their trees by pouring harmful chemical, the appellants have reported the matter to the police. As a counterblast, the present complaint has been filed. It is said that the husband of the respondent no.2 Patiram and his son are working in the Sitapur Judgeship and has lot of influence. It has been stated that when his FIR was not lodged on account of influence of respondents upon the local police, the appellant no.1 has moved an application under Section 156(3) CRPC on 6.11.2019 but the same is still pending on account of pressure tactics of the respondent no.1 and his son. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act are not attracted in the circumstances of the case as the alleged incident has taken place inside the house and not at a place within public view. Further, in view of the decision rendered in Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra and another (2013) 14 SCC 44 , even offence under other sections are not made out against the appellants. 7. Lastly, it has been argued that the present criminal proceedings have been initiated with an ulterior motive to harass the appellants which is causing serious prejudice as well as loss of reputation in the locality where the appellants are residing. It is said that the present criminal proceedings are nothing but an absolute abuse of the process of law. 8. Refuting the assertions of the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned AGA have submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 9. The learned Court below has proceeded to pass the summoning order after following due procedure and recording the statement of the complainant and other witnesses. Therefore, the present is liable to be dismissed. 10. It is settled law that all insults or intimidation 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. Therefore, the present is liable to be dismissed. 10. It is settled law that all insults or intimidation 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 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. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view". In the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand another (2020) 10 SCC 710 , which has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to examine the applicability of section 3 of the SC/ST Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the basic ingredients of the offence under under section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as (1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and (2) in any place within public view. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "13. The offence under 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 No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. 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 No.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 No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste." 11. In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2020) 18 SCC 763 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a case for applicability of section 3 (2)(V) of the Act, the fact that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhanced punishment. The Court observed that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. 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. 12. In the case of Swaran Singh v. State (2008) 8 SCC 435 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court define the expression "place within public view" and "public place". The relevant paragraph reads 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. 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." 13. The instant case is to be examined the light of the aforesaid proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases. It is the clear cut stand of the complainant-Prema @ Ramguni in the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.PC that the appellants had entered into the house at 9 PM using expletive language and assaulted her husband and sons. It is not the case of the complainant that at the time of incident other peoples of the locality were present. The incident had occurred inside a house which was not within the public view and no member of public was present at that time. 14. Therefore, from the material on record offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the complainant 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 victims belong to such a caste. Moreover, it comes out from the record that there was a dispute between the parties with regard to trees standing over a piece of land which is situated near the house of the respondent no.2. The appellants have also filed a complaint against the private respondents in respect of the dispute took place earlier. It is relevant to add that the complaint neither discloses the caste of the complainant or her family members nor the allegations are that they were made in public view. Also, the offending words are not purported to be made for the reason that the informant is a person belonging to Scheduled Caste. The other sections of IPC are also not attracted, thus no case is made out against the appellants in the aforesaid case. Also, the offending words are not purported to be made for the reason that the informant is a person belonging to Scheduled Caste. The other sections of IPC are also not attracted, thus no case is made out against the appellants in the aforesaid case. 15. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the charges levelled against the appellants under sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and section 3(1) (r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act are not made out against the appellants. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the proceedings of complaint Case No. 242 of 2019 Smt. Prema alias Ramguni v. Rakesh Singh and others) so far as it relates to the appellants, under sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act, pending in the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur and the impugned summoning order dated 09.03.2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur are hereby quashed.