Parbat Dahyabhai Rabari and Others vs State of Gujarat and Another

M.R. Shah, J.—Rule. Shri M.B. Rana, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent No. 2 - original complainant and Shri K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent No. 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties, application is taken up for final hearing today.

Present Criminal Miscellaneous Application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicants - original accused Nos. 1 to 3 to quash and set aside the impugned complaint/FIR being C.R. No. II-3249/2010 registered with Deesa City Police Station, District Banaskantha for the offences punishable under Sections 506(2), 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as "Atrocities Act").

This Court issued notice for the purpose of considering the case of the applicants qua the offence alleged u/s 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has also restricted the present application qua quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR so far as offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act alleged against the applicants is concerned.

Shri N.D. Buch, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has submitted that as such no case is made out against the applicants for the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act and the FIR impugned against the applicants for the aforesaid offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act is nothing but abuse of process of Court and law and only with a view to harass the applicants and with malafide intention offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act is alleged against the applicants. Shri N.D. Buch, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has submitted that infact the basic ingredients attracting offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act is missing and therefore, it is requested to allow the present application. Shri N.D. Buch, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. and Others, as well as the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pappu Singh Vs. State of U.P., and decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Manohar Kulkarni and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, in support of his prayer to allow the present application and to quash and set aside the impugned FIR filed against the applicants so far as the alleged offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act is concerned. Shri Buch, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has further submitted that as such there are no allegations and/or averments against applicant Nos. 2 and 3 with respect to any abusive language used. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present application.

Petition is opposed by Shri M.B. Rana, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 - original complainant. It is submitted that so far as applicant No. 1, Parbat Dahyabhai Rabari is concerned, he has used the abusive language and called the applicant as "bhil" with intend to insult or humiliate him in a public place, therefore, a clear case is made out atleast against applicant No. 1 for the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. Therefore, it is requested not to exercise powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash the impugned FIR against the applicants even for the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act.

Shri Poojari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has requested to pass appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties at length and considered the impugned FIR/complaint as it is and the averments and allegations made in the said complaint against the applicants. Considering the impugned FIR as it is, as such there are no allegations against applicant Nos. 2 and 3 with respect to any abusive language used against the complainant. Therefore, as such there is no case against applicant Nos. 2 and 3 at all. So far as applicant No. 1 is concerned, the allegation against him is that he has called the complainant as "bhil". Except above, there are no allegations at all. In the complaint there are no averments that by using the aforesaid word by applicant No. 1 and calling the complainant as "bhil", the same was with an intention to insult or intimidate.

6.1 Identical question came to be considered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah (Supra) wherein also the allegation against the accused person was for the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act and it was alleged that the accused abused him with name of his caste. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the said decision by exercising powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, quashed the said complaint by observing that there are no allegations in the complaint that accused not S.C. or S.T. and that the allegations of intentional humiliation in place within public view was also absent and the Hon''ble Supreme Court further observed that in absence of any such allegations, complaint lacks in basic ingredients of offence and therefore, continuance of proceedings would be abuse of process of law. In the present case also, as stated herein above, as such there are no allegations against the applicants of intentional humiliation in place within public view. Under the circumstances and considering the aforesaid decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the impugned complaint against applicants for the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act deserves to be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

On facts, the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh and Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel and Anr. reported in 2008(3) GLH 446, which has been relied upon by learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 - original complainant would not be of any assistance to him.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, application succeeds in part and the impugned complaint/FIR being C.R. No. II-3249/2010 registered with Deesa City Police Station, District Banaskantha is hereby quashed and set aside so far as the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act is concerned. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only.