Naripati Rawat vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Another

The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashment of F.I.R. registered at Crime No.59/2016 for the

offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506, 406 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(5-A) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST Act), as well as consequential proceedings.

Precisely the prosecution case is that respondent No.2/complainant Smt. Pushpa Jatav lodged the report at Police Station A.J.K., Morena alleging

inter alia that she got the part of the land from Nirpati Rawat for cultivation. On 19.10.2016 when the crop of Bajra was being taken at that time she

harvested and taking out the Bajra with the help of one Bharat Jatav then due to the quantity of bags, dispute arose with Nirpati Rawat. The said

dispute culminated into verbal altercation and physical force by which the petitioner pushed the complainant resulting into her falling down and she was

beaten by kicks and fists and abusive language indicating caste of respondent No.2 were hurled over her. During the incident, Renu Jatav and

Priyanka Jatav came there and saved the complainant. Thereafter, on the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Crime No.59/2016 has been registered

against the applicant for the offences referred above. Thereafter, petitioner was arrested. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and charge-

sheet was filed.

Since the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. as well as the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. the narration of event indicates that it was

only on the basis of distribution of millet crop, therefore, it cannot be said that any incident took place with the complainant, being a member for

Scheduled Caste but complainant/respondent No.2 initiated the proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act against the petitioner.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the registration of F.I.R. is arbitrary, illegal and abuse of process of law. Respondent No.2 registered

the case against the petitioner only on the basis of some verbal altercation took place between the parties with regard to distribution of millet crop and

therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed any incident against the complainant. Therefore, the entire prosecution initiated against

the petitioner is abuse of process of law, hence liable to be quashed. Alleged incident has taken place only on the basis of distribution of millet crop

and therefore, it cannot be said that the incident committed by the petitioner with the respondent No. 2 to insult, intimidate and humiliate the member of

Scheduled Caste because prosecution case does not involve any piece of evidence. The civil transaction is being converted into criminal case. In fact,

respondent No.1 has registered the case against the petitioner under Section 406 of IPC also. It is hereby submitted that complainant has never given

any property to the petitioner, therefore, no entrustment of the petitioner upon the property of the complainant arises, therefore, it cannot be said that

any case of any breach of trust exists against the petitioner. It appears that respondent No.2 has not produced any cogent evidence against the

petitioner for constituting the alleged offence.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the case indicates the

involvement of the petitioner. Therefore, the case be dismissed.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

Here in the present case, allegations levelled by the complainant are in respect of offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506 & 406 of IPC as

well as offence under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and (3)(2)(5-A) of the SC/ST Act. From the allegations, it appears that the incident was of dated 19.10.2016

when on the point of agriculture produce dispute arose between the parties. Complainant cultivated the land of present petitioner harboured the

impression of getting of 25 bags of millet, in return but appeared to have received only 18 bags of millet, therefore, dispute arose, only in respect of

quantity of agriculture produce.

Even if the allegations of the complainant are taken on its face value even then offence under the provisions of the the SC/ST Act are not attracted

because petitioner has not hurled any abusive language with intention to insult the complainant. The said dispute, if any, arose in respect of a civil

transaction/contract existing between the parties wherein complainant had to cut the agriculture produce in agriculture field belonging to the petitioner

and had to receive certain amount in lieu thereof. Case was falling under civil nature wherein petitioner sought explanation from complainant for lower

yield.

Legislative intent in this regard is clear. The intention to insult ought to be harboured and expressed by the accused in public view to implicate him in

categorical terms. Here, the intention of petitioner does not appear to insult the complainant. He was only asking for agriculture produce and not called

the complainant by using filthy language relating to her caste with an intention to insult her.

The Apex Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andra Pradesh and Others, 2008 (12) SCC 531 has held that once the basic ingredients

of Section 3(1) of the Act are not available, wherein a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe was intentionally insulted or intimated by

the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view are not available that proceedings pending against the accused would be abuse of

process of law. Similarly, in the case of Swaran Singh and Others Vs. State (Through Standing Counsel) and Another, 2008 (8) SCC 435, the Apex

Court has held that one cannot confuse the expression “place within public view†with the expression “public placeâ€. A place can be a

private place but yet within a public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the

Government or the Municipality etc. Here, it appears that the place was private land but it was not under public view. Here the incident occurred over

the agriculture field of the petitioner and the content of F.I.R. and statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. made by the complainant it is nowhere

elaborated that it was a public view. Once the spot of the incident is not under the public view then case against the petitioner is not made out.

The Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. &b Others, 2006 (6) SCC 736 has cautioned about a growing tendency in

business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. The Court has observed that :-

“Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should

be deprecated and discouraged.â€​

Similarly in the case of G.Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P.,2000 (2) SCC 636, this Court observed that it is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to

exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature.

Therefore, once the ingredients of provision of Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(5-A) of the IPC are not available while reading the story of the prosecution

as well as the statement made, the case appears to be frivolous and is abuse of process of law.

The incident is of dated 19.10.2016 and F.I.R. was lodged on 24.10.2016, therefore, question of delayed F.I.R. (so far as as the allegation of the

SC/ST Act is concerned) appears to be subsequent thought (not for other charge) because if any person is humiliated or feels so, then common human

response is to immediately register the F.I.R. before the Concerned Station House Officer and not to keep silent for 5-6 days. This aspect also goes

against the complainant.

The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajan Lal & Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has held as under :-

In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the

following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any

Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and

inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) Where the allegations made in the first Information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety

do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence,

justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section

155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the

commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted

by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever

reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is

instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing

efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for

wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

In view of the parameters referred above and perusal of F.I.R. and statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it appears that no case is made out

involving ingredients of the SC/ST Act under Section 3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(5-A). Resultantly, F.I.R. so far as it relates to the SC/ST Act is

hereby quashed and deleted. F.I.R. in respect of other offences alleged against the accused under the provisions of Indian Penal Code shall continue

and the matter shall be decided on its own merits in respect of offences levelled against the petitioner as per law. The Sessions Court is directed to

consider the impact of deletion of charges framed by the Sessions Court in respect of provision contained in the SC/ST Act and subsequent procedural

action be ensured as per provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. Matter be remanded back to the trial Court for further trial proceeding as referred

above.

Petition is hereby allowed and disposed of.