Rajendra Singh Bhadoriya and Others vs State of M.P. and Others

This petition has been preferred u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. against the order dated 6.03.2013 passed by learned Special Judge Datia, by which revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and by order dated 30.11.2012 cognizance has been taken against the petitioners u/s 294, 506(B) of I.P.C. and u/s 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been confirmed. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint before the court of C.J.M. Datia that on 7.07.2009 at about 8:00 A.M., complainant approached the petitioner no. 1 for taking certain money. petitioners paid Rs. 40,000/- in place of Rs. 80,000/- despite of the fact that according to an oral agreement Rs. 80,000/- were required to be paid petitioners have insulted the complainant saying ''Chamrawale''. On the basis of the complaint learned C.J.M. has taken cognizance against the petitioners against which revision petition was preferred, which has been rejected. Being aggrieved this petition has been preferred.

It is submitted that, if prosecution story is accepted as a whole even then offence u/s 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not made out because calling a person by his caste does not constitute the offence. It is further submitted that the alleged incident was committed on account of some money dispute therefore, it cannot be said that the incident was happened because of the cast of complainant. It is further submitted that the learned C.J.M. Datia has directed the police to conduct inquiry and after inquiry the police has found that allegations are false. The learned C.J.M. in his order has nowhere considered the report. It is submitted that learned revisional court has failed to consider the controversy.

Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant and Panel Lawyer submits that the order of taking cognizance against the petitioners has rightly been passed. As the complainant/respondent has clearly stated on oath that the petitioners knowing that he belongs to Scheduled Caste intentionally insulted by uttering "Chamrawale" and also given threat to kill him.

In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record.

From the perusal of the complaint filed by respondent No. 1, it appears that the learned C.J.M. has directed Police Station AJK, Datia to enquire into the matter and submit the report. Thereafter inquiry has been done by the Police and report dated 25.05.2010 has been submitted. In inquiry it was found that the entire amount of contract was paid by the petitioners to the complainant but the complainant was not satisfied and wanted more, hence he has made false allegation against the petitioners.

The order passed by the learned CJM, reveals that the cognizance has been taken on the basis of the statement recorded under Sections 200 & 202 of Cr.P.C., nowhere it is mentioned that earlier inquiry was directed and police has submitted its report and stated that the allegation levelled against the petitioners are false.

On going through the statement of complainant Brijendra, it appears that he went to take amount from Ravindra Singh on account of some construction work, then petitioners have given Rs. 40.,000/- when he insisted that contract was of Rs. 80,000/ petitioners stated that they will not pay the amount and also uttered the word ''Chamar''. Bhagwan Singh, Lakhan and Savitri have also supported this statement.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the ingredients of offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not established. He further submits that the incident has not taken place because of the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste community but due to some money transaction, therefore, there was no intention to humiliate the complainant being a member of Scheduled Caste, therefore, the offence is not made out.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Santosh Lodha Vs. State of M.P., , Shayam Singh @ Dhannu Kaurav and another Vs. State of M.P., and in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. and Others,

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Swaran Singh and Others Vs. State through Standing Counsel and Another, in which it has been held:-

In our opinion, calling a member of the Scheduled Caste ''Chamar'' with intent to insult or humiliate him in a place within public view is certainly an offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act. Whether there was intent to insult or humiliate by using the word ''Chamar'' will of course depend on the context in which it was used.

In the light of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (Supra) case, if we examine the instant case it became clear that nowhere in the complaint it is mentioned that the petitioners have uttered the word ''Chamrawale'' with an intention to insult or humiliate the petitioners. Even in the statement neither the complainant nor any witnesses have stated so. Moreover, as per the complaint the instant incident alleged to have been taken place at the house of the petitioners. Nowhere it is alleged that the petitioners abused the complainant within the public view. The essential ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act the intention to insult or humiliate is lacking in the complaint, therefore, even if treating the allegation in the complaint to be correct the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be held to be prima facie made out against the petitioners.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 has held as under:-

This Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C. gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this Court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formula and to give an exhaustive list to 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 FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 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 u/s 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 specified provisions 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 malafide 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.

Now the question is whether the instant case comes under any of the category enumerated in Bhajanlal (supra) ? Is it a case where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, make out a case against the accused under Sections 294, 506-B of IPC and 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act? As noticed here in above the ingredients of offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are lacking. Similarly ingredients of Sections 294, 506B of IPC are also lacking.

From the perusal of the report of the Police Station AJK it seems that the complaint has been filed with a view to extract money and in my considered opinion, continuation of proceedings leading to injustice amounts to abuses of process of Court and, this Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers of the Court and the instant case is covered under the category No. (1) of Bhajan Lal case (supra). Therefore the petition deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the proceedings before the CJM Datia in Criminal Case No. 1579/2012 is hereby quashed.