Dr. Jayant Kumar Verma vs State of Jharkhand and Another

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.—The order dated 29.2.2012, passed in SC/ST Case No. 16/12, arising out of Ranka P.S. Case No. 63/2011 (G.R. No. 650/2011), under which cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 193, 196 of the Indian Penal Code and also u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been taken against the petitioner, is sought to be quashed on the ground that no offence whatsoever is made out u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and that the Court has committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 193, 196 of the Indian Penal Code as the alleged offence has not been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in Court and that it is hit by the provision as contained in Section 195(b)(i), Cr. P.C., and that the parties have entered into a compromise so far as offence under Sections 341, 323 and 504 /34, IPC are concerned, which offence are compoundable. It is the case of the informant as has been made out in the first information report that the petitioner an MBBS Doctor though is a Pathologist has been practicing as General Physician. Since, he was practicing in general side, the informant asked him to produce certificate, upon it the petitioner became quite angry and abused the informant by naming his cast and then assaulted him. On such allegation, the cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 504 /34, 193, 196 of the Indian Penal Code and also u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, was taken against the petitioner.

From perusal of the first information report and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do find that no case is made out u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as the petitioner has never been alleged to have insulted or intimidated the informant within the "public view". Having noticed the provision as contained in Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it can be said that there has been purpose to introduce the word "public view" as only when the members of the S.C. and ST., is abused within the "public view", he/she can be said to have been humiliated and as such, whenever a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is humiliated or intimidated, in public view, the offence gets attracted under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Here in the instant case, there has been absolutely no allegation nor there is anything to indicate or to suggest that the informant was abused within the "public view" or within "public hearing" and as such, the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, never gets attracted.

So far as the offences under Sections 193 and 196, IPC are concerned, no such offence from the reading of the F.I.R., gets attracted. Moreover, any order taking cognizance of the said offences is hit by Section 195(b)(i), Cr. P.C.

So far as other offences are concerned, the parties had entered into an agreement, whereby the parties got their dispute resolved.

Under the circumstances, no useful purpose would be served, allowing the petitioner to face rigour of trial.

Accordingly, order taking cognizance dated 29.2.2012, passed in SC/ST Case No. 16/12, arising out of Ranka P.S. Case No. 63/2011 (G.R. No. 650/2011), is hereby quashed. In the result, this application stands allowed.