Deepak Saini vs State of Uttarakhand

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—A charge-sheet was submitted against the accused/applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(v)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The cognizance was taken by the Magistrate, vide order dated 07.02.2014.

Aggrieved against the same, present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was filed by him.

Learned counsel for the applicant has no qualms regarding filing of the charge-sheet under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. against the accused-applicant. The sole contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that even if the entire contents of the F.I.R. be taken to be true, no offence punishable u/s 3(1)(v)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) is made out. The F.I.R. was read over by the learned counsel for the applicant in the open Court. Learned counsel for the applicant also read the statements of Smt. Sunita, Smt. Kuljeet Kaur, Darshan Singh, Harjap Singh, Gambhir Gupta and Satvinder Singh, recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Only Smt. Sunita stated in her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that the accused person used casteist remarks against the complainant.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the accused-applicant used casteist remarks against the complainant, will it alone amount to offence punishable u/s 3(1)(v)(x) of SC/ST Act?

The judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. and Others, provides the answer. It will be useful to reproduce para-6 of Gorige Pentaiah''s case (supra) herein below:-

"6. In the instant case, the allegation of Respondent 3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.05.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (Respondent 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law."

The aforesaid facts and law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court are equally applicable to the facts of the instant case. As a consequence of which, it is held that no offence under SC/ST Act is made out against the applicant.

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, partly allowed. The impugned charge-sheet, as also the summoning of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(v)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is set aside. No interference is called for, in so far as the filing of charge-sheet, as also summoning of the accused/applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. is concerned.