Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 194 (UTT)

Rajendra v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-03-14

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. Instant revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2024, passed in Misc. Case No.372 of 2023, Rajendra Vs. Ram Swaroop and others, by the court of Special Sessions Judge, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short, “case”). By it, an application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The revisionist moved an application against the private respondents for removal of their illegal occupation on a land specially ear marked for the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Due to this reason, the application records that the private respondents were inimical towards the revisionist and on 26.05.2023 at 09:00 the revisionist was abused with Caste coloured remarks, as to how dare he complained against the private respondents for vacating the Government land. The application records that the revisionist was threatened to life and he was also threatened that he may be falsely implicated in some cases. The application is quite in detail. The Special Judge, Udham Singh Nagar called a report from Police Station. The report of police station states that no case was lodged on the application of the revisionist. According to the police report, the parties were in dispute with regard to a property and no such incident took place. After considering the entire factual aspects, the special court rejected the application under Section 156(3) of the Code. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist would submit that perusal of the application under Section 156(3) of the Code filed by the revisionist reveals that an offence under the provisions of The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“the Act”) is made out. He would submit that the Caste coloured remarks were used and the revisionist was abused by the private respondents. He would refer to Section 3(r) of the Act, which reads as follows:- “3. Punishments for offences of atrocities ………………………………………………………………………… (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.” 5. He would refer to Section 3(r) of the Act, which reads as follows:- “3. Punishments for offences of atrocities ………………………………………………………………………… (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.” 5. It may be noted that in the application under Section 156(3) of the Code, filed by the revisionist, it is also recorded that based on a report given by the private respondents police has lodged the proceedings under Sections 107/116 of the Code against the wife of the revisionist and his brother. 6. In every case whenever Caste coloured words are used, it does not attract the provisions of the Act. In the case of Khuman Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2020)18 SCC 763 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed these aspects and in para 14 observed as follows:- “14. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the deceased was belonging to “Khangar”— Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable.” 7. The law on this point has further been discussed by the Hob’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, (2020)10 SCC 710 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that 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, offence under the Act is not made out. In para 18 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “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 para 18 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “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. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.” 8. In the instant case, what is alleged is that the revisionist had moved an application for evicting the private respondents from some Government land. There was a dispute in between the parties with regard to the property. 9. In the instant case, even if the allegations as levelled that in the application under Section 156(3) of the Code, are accepted in its entirety, it does not make out any offence under the provisions of the Act. The words are not used just to humiliate the revisionist for the reason he belongs to a particular community. Parties are in dispute with regard to the ownership, possession of a land. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the special court, though on different grounds has rightly dismissed the application. There is no reason to make any interference in this revision. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 10. The revision is dismissed in limine.