Ali Kaushar and Others vs State of M.P.

B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on I.A. No. 10094/14, an application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 24 days in preferring the present revision.

In view of the arguments together with consideration of the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the delay in preferring the revision petition is hereby condoned. The aforesaid I.A. stands hereby allowed.

With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally.

This revision petition has been submitted under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. by the accused/petitioners challenging an order dated 12/8/2014 in Special Sessions Case No. 35/2014 passed by the Special Judge (SC and ST), Ashoknagar (M.P.) framing thereby charges against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 in alternative 323/34, 506 (Part II) and 427 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, in short the "Act".

Sequelly, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners do not want to press the instant revision-petition to discharge them from the offence punishable Sections 294, 323 in alternative 323/34, 506 (Part II) and 427 of I.P.C. but confine their prayer only to quashment of charge framed under section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act.

Accordingly, the revision for rest of the charges framed above under the Indian Penal Code is hereby dismissed as not pressed. The arguments are heard only on the quashment of charge framed under the Special Act.

Facts, in short, just for the adjudication of the case are that one written complaint was lodged by Lalla (respondent No. 2) to the effect that on 19/4/2013 at around 3 o'' clock in night when he was doing his duty as Chowkidari at the shop of Hariom Raghuvanshi, at that juncture, four miscreants came over there by a motorbike and started causing damage to the shop by pelting stones. When the complainant restrained them, he was mercilessly beaten by these accused and was also intentionally insulted with intent to humiliate him in a place within public view. On the report of the complainant, an FIR was lodged and after investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners-accused for the alleged offences. On committal in trial, the charges have been framed as mentioned above.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused is that if the entire prosecution case has been accepted as true, even then prima facie no offence as alleged under the Special Act, is made out against the petitioners. It is submitted by the counsel that as per own allegation of the prosecution the incident occurred in night at 3 a.m. Nobody was present on the spot, therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant was abused with a view to humiliate him by the accused in a place within public view. It is also submitted by the counsel that prosecution witnesses, namely, Hariom Raghuvanshi, Sanjay Jain, Kapur Singh Yadav, Rakesh Sharma, Devendra Pal and Ramraja Yadav have not stated that they were present on the spot when the complainant was abused by the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order of framing charge against the petitioners/accused under section 3(1)(x) of the Act is per se illegal and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is prayed that by allowing the revision petition to that extent, the order impugned may be set aside and the accused/petitioners may be discharged of the offence under the Special Act.

The said prayer was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/State as well as respondent No. 2. It is submitted that the present is not stage to decide whether the alleged offence is committed by the accused/petitioners or not whereas it is a matter of evidence. Hence, it is prayed that the revision deserves to be rejected.

Having regard to the submissions raised by the counsel for the parties, the entire record has been perused. Before adverting to the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant provision under challenge which is given in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. It runs as below:--

"Section 3(1)(x):--(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe intentionally insults or intimidates with intention to humiliate a member of a scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe at any place within public view, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six month and may extent to five years and with fine." 11. On coming back to the case at hand, it is clear that in FIR it was not mentioned that the complainant was abused with the name of his caste by the petitioners in order to humiliate him in a place within public view. Further, it was not mentioned that at the time of incident persons/witnesses were present on the spot and they also saw the petitioners by hurling abuses to the victim. Though it was mentioned that after commission of offence aforesaid witnesses reached on the spot but from perusal of their statements, it is nowhere apparent that they have heard any kind of abusive words uttered to the complainant/victim. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove by placing evidence on record that the victim was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused/petitioners with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. The basic ingredients of the offence are as such missing in the complaint, therefore by permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the petitioners/accused to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be absolutely wholly unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.

In the result, the revision petition stands allowed only to the extent of framing of charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The petitioners/accused are discharged of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. It is made clear that the trial against petitioners/accused shall continue for other charges except the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The trial court is directed to remand the case for trial of the accused-petitioners for remaining charges as indicated above. The petitioners are also directed to make their appearance before the trial court on 5/5/2015 and thereafter before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned as per the terms of directions given by the present Special Court.

A copy of this order be forwarded to the trial court concerned for necessary compliance.