AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Madhumati Mitra, J
In the year 2015, the petitioners approached for quashing of the First Information Report being Regent Park Police Station, Case No.114 of 2015,
dated 01.06.2015 under Sections 153A/295A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(X)/3(XV) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas (ACGR-
3291/15).
During the pendency of the no.1, viz.Nityananda Paul expired. son of petitioner no.1. present revisional application, the petitioner Petitioner nos.2 and
3 are the daughter and The background aspects of the matter, so far relevant for the present purpose, may be mentioned, in brief, as follows:
Petitioner no.2 and opposite party got married in the year 2013. It was alleged that petitioner no.2 was subjected to physical and mental torture since
her marriage by her husband (opposite party no.2) and her in laws. Petitioner no.2 lodged an F.I.R. being the Regent Park Police Station Case No.214
of 2014, dated 04.10.2014, under Section 498A/120B of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation of that case culminated into submission of charge-sheet
being charge-sheet no.102, dated 29.11.2014, under Sections 498A/341/323/506(ii)/114 of the Indian Penal Code.
It was the further allegation of the petitioners that the opposite party no.2 in gross abuse of the process of Court filed an application under Section
156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That petition of complaint was registered as an F.I.R. and a specific case was started against the present
petitioners for commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 153A/295A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(X), 3(XV) of
The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Learned Counsel for the State has produced the copy of the case diary at the time of hearing. From the case diary, it reveals that the investigation
ended in submission of charge-sheet against the petitioners for commission of aforesaid alleged offences.
Certified copy of the petition of complaint has been annexed to the present application for quashing of the proceedings. From the said petition of
complaint, it reveals that the marriage of petitioner no.2 with complainant/opposite party no.2 was a love marriage and their marriage was not
accepted by the petitioner nos.1 and 3. Opposite party no.2/complainant belongs to schedule caste community. It was alleged in the said petition of
complaint that petitioner nos.1 and 3 provoked the petitioner no.2 to use abusive and caste indicative language against the complainant and his family
as they are Harijans.
On 3rd October, 2014, at about 10.30 am, the accused persons/petitioners threatened the brother, sister in law of the complainant and also one villager
of the complainant who had come to the residence of the complainant on the occasion of Durga Puja and the accused abused them with filthy
language mentioning their caste, place of origin and family status. It was also specifically alleged that the accused no.3, i.e., petitioner no.2 always
created mental pressure upon the complainant as he belongs to the scheduled caste community.
While making his submissions in favour of quashing of the proceedings, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated and the allegations contained in the petition of complaint are wholly baseless and have no factual foundation.
According to his contention, the averments of the petition of complaint do not indicate the existence of the necessary ingredients of the alleged
offences under Sections 153A/295A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(X)/3(XV) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is the further contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings pending against the
petitioners are the counterblast to the proceedings initiated by them against the opposite party no.2/complainant for commission of the offences under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
It has also been submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners do not belong to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe
community and as such they cannot be prosecuted for commissions of the alleged offences under the provisions of The Scheduled Castes and The
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He has further urged that in absence of specific averments in the petition of complaint that the
petitioners/accused belonging to a higher caste insulted the complainant with full knowledge otherwise, the continuance of the proceedings would be
an abuse of the process of the Court.
Another plea has been raised on behalf of the petitioners that the investigation was not conducted in the manner as prescribed under Rule 7 of The
Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Rules made under sub-Section(1) of Section 23 of Act and is liable
to be quashed.
On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the State has refuted the contentions as well as the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the
petitioners and submitted that the averments in the petition of complaint and the materials collected during investigation clearly indicate the commission
of alleged offences. According to her contention, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners.
The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is a special statute. But this statute has not prescribed any
separate procedure for investigation, inquiry, trial of the offences under this Act except Rule 7 of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rules 1995. Rule 7 of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rules 1995
made under sub-Section (1) of Section 23 of the Act provides that an offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by the police officer not
below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. From the case diary, it reveals that the investigation was conducted by Mr.Jainal Abedin, Asstt.
Commissioner of Police (III), South Suburban Division (Jadavpur Division), Kolkata. As such, the contention of the petitioner that the investigation
was not conducted as per rule is not tenable at all.
A plain reading of Section 3 of the Act shows that the offences which are enumerated under Section 3(1) of the Act require to be committed by a
person who is not a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe community. As such, in order to attract the provision of Section 3(1) of the Act,
the accused is not required to be a member of scheduled castes or scheduled tribes community, but the victim must be a member of the said
community.
It is true that quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
is an exception. It can be exercised ex debito justitia to do real and substantial justice.
In order to form an opinion in this regard, the entire complaint has to be read as a whole. If on perusal of the entire complaint, it reveals that the
averments of the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely do not prima facie constitute any offence or make
out a case against the petitioners/accused then the question of quashment of criminal proceedings comes. In the present case the opposite party
No.2/complainant described how she was abused and ill treated as they are the members of the scheduled caste. A plea has been raised on behalf of
the petitioners that the proceedings pending against them are the counter blast to the criminal proceeding initiated by them against the
petitioners/accused.
Earlier proceedings initiated by the accused/petitioners against the opposite party No.2/complainant does not ipso facto prove or establish that the
subsequent proceeding is a counterblast to the earlier proceedings. Each case has to be judged on its own merit.
A specific contention has been made on behalf of the petitioners that ingredients of alleged offences under Sections 153A/295A of the Indian Penal
Code are totally absent in the written complaint.
In the present case, the investigation ended in the submission of charge-sheet against the petitioners.
It is well settled that the High Court While exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. should not exercise the jurisdiction of the trial Court
and hold a parallel trial. More so, from the materials placed in the case diary it cannot be said that the continuance of the proceedings would be an
abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the prayer for quashing of the proceedings is dismissed on due consideration.
Before parting with the case, I would like to clarify that the observations as made in this judgment should not be taken as an expression of any opinion
regarding the merit of the criminal proceedings pending before the Learned Magistrate. The Learned Trial Magistrate shall proceed with the complaint
and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
Certified copy of the case diary be handed over to the Learned Counsel for the State immediately.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities.