Anil Arora vs Babu Lal

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—The applicants, by means of present Application u/s 482, Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the summoning order dated 21.08.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate/4th Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 464 of 2010 titled as Babul Lal v. Anil Arora & others under Sections 323, 504 & 506, IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the order dated 08.07.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/3rd F.T.C., Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 528/2010. A private criminal complaint case was filed by the complainant (respondent herein) against 3 accused persons (applicants herein) in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 & 506, IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Statement of the complainant was recorded u/s 200, Cr.P.C. Statements of Kanta Prasad and Angad Singh were recorded u/s 202, Cr.P.C. Having found a prima facie case against the accused persons, the Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar summoned the accused persons to face the trial, vide order dated 21.08.2010. Aggrieved against the same, accused persons preferred a criminal revision No. 528/2010 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, which was dismissed, vide order dated 08.07.2011. Aggrieved against the same, present application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused-applicants.

In his complaint, the complainant (respondent herein) stated that he was a member of Scheduled Caste community. Accused persons were not the members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. A land was allotted to the complainant for agricultural use by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department. On 16.03.2010 at 8:00 a.m., the complainant was working in his field. Accused persons came to him and started making a thoroughfare forcibly. The fencing around the field was also uprooted. When the complainant refrained them from doing so, accused persons used castiest remarks, hurled abuses at him and threatened him with dire consequences. They also said that they will not permit the complainant to work in the field. Accused persons also pushed the complainant aside. Angad Singh, Kanta Prasad and others came on the spot and saw the incident. The complainant went to Police Station, Jwalapur for lodging the report, but his report was not lodged. The complainant sent an application to the S.S.P., Haridwar, but no action was taken on the same. The incident took place in public view. Since there was no external injury, therefore, the complainant did not go to the medical officer for examination of his injury.

In addition to the above, the complainant stated u/s 200, Cr.P.C. that he obtained stay as regards the land which was allotted to him on lease by the Irrigation Department. PW 1 Kanta Prasad supported the complainant and stated that he and PW 2 Angad saved Babu Lal. The accused persons wanted to carve out pathway. PW 2 Angad also supported complainant-story. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, having found a prima facie case against the accused persons, passed a detailed and reasoned order on 21.08.2010 summoning the accused persons to face the trial. There appears to be no illegality in the said order.

When the same was challenged before the revisional court, learned Additional Sessions Judge agreed with the findings of learned Judicial Magistrate. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also gave a finding that the place of incident was a public place, accused persons allegedly used castiest remarks and therefore it cannot be contended that there was no application of the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to the facts of this case. In fact, the words ''in any place within public view'' is used u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Since it was an open field and according to the complaint-version, the witnesses were also present, therefore, it cannot be said that the incident did not take place ''in any place within public view''.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted, among other things, that the dispute was of civil nature, the original suit No. 13/2010 was already decided ex parte in favour of the complainant and, therefore, this Court should intervene in the matter in exercise of it''s inherent jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the applicants also drew attention of this Court towards the report dated 31.12.2010 of Assistant Police Superintendent (CO. City, Haridwar) to indicate that the dispute between the parties was of civil nature.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. One of the principles is that where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained. It may be purely a civil wrong or purely a criminal offence or a civil wrong as also a criminal offence constituting both on the same set of facts. But, if the records disclose commission of a criminal offence and the ingredients of the offence are satisfied, then such criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because a civil wrong has also been committed. The power cannot be invoked to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The factual foundation and ingredients of an offence being satisfied, the Court will not either dismiss a complaint or quash such proceedings in exercise of its original jurisdiction.

In view of above, this Court should not interfere in the proceedings of the court below in exercise of it''s inherent jurisdiction. As a consequence thereof, application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants made an innocuous prayer that the court below be directed to decide the bail applications of the applicants on the same day. Learned counsel for the respondent did not object to such a prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants. Learned counsel for the respondent graciously conceded that he has no objection, if the applicants are granted bail by the court below on the same day. It is accordingly provided that if the applicants surrender before the Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar and seek bail, their bail applications in criminal case No. 464/2010 shall be decided by the Magistrate concerned on the same day. If learned Magistrate is unable to grant bail to the applicants and the applicants move before the Special Judge, then it is provided that learned Special Judge shall take up the matter on the same day and decide the bail application(s) of the applicants.