Ravindra Nath Rai & Another vs Rakesh Kumar

N.S. Dhanik, J

This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 CrPC, is preferred to quash the summoning order dated 17.1.2014 and the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 1185/2013, Rakesh Kumar Sagar v. Ravindra & Another, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rurdrapur, Udham Singh Nagar.

Facts, in brief, are that the on 13.8.2009, the complainant/respondent filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur alleging that at about 10 PM on 7.7.2009, the applicants forcibly entered into complainant's house and abused and assaulted him and he suffered injuries in the said incident. On this application, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed to lodge the FIR and investigate the matter. Accordingly, FIR was lodged for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and after investigation, the police submitted the final report on 22.2.2010. On 31.1.2013, almost after three years of filing the final report, the complainant filed the protest petition whereupon the learned Magistrate took cognizance and treated the matter as the complaint case and after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, summoned the applicants to face trial for the offences under Sections 324, 452, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

Learned Counsel for the applicants contended that the complainant has falsely implicated the applicants with ulterior motive and the Investigation Officer in the final report has come to the same conclusion. The Investigation Officer, in the final report dated 22.2.2010, has stated that the complainant lodged the false complaint in collusion with some colonizers in order pressurize the accused applicants.

Indisputably the learned Magistrate, on filing the protest petition against the final report, was well within his jurisdiction to reject the final report and to treat the protest petition as complaint. However, at the same time, it is the settled principle of law that while taking cognizance and summoning the accused to face the trial, the allegations must satisfy the basic ingredients of the offences and a prima facie case must be made out against the applicants.

One of the basic ingredients to make out offence under the Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is that the complainant ought to have alleged in his complainant that the accused applicants are not the members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, but the complainant has not made any such averment in his complaint. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State Of A.P. & Ors, (2008) 12 SCC 531, has held as under:

"According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No. 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No. 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law."

As regards the offence under Section 504 IPC, in Fiona Shrikhande Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another, (2013) 14 SCC 44, the Hon'ble Apex Court noticed the ingredients of Section 504 IPC and observed as under:

"Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients, viz., (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC."

As is evident from the above, the intentional insult on the part of the accused must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the accused came and abused the complainant in filthy language does not satisfy the ingredients.

All told, considering the papers on record and on a plain reading of the allegations made in the complaint, I am of the view that the allegations made in the complaint do not inspire confidence of the Court and even if the same are considered on the face value, a prima facie case is not made out against the applicants.

Consequently, the present C482 application is allowed. Summoning order dated 17.1.2014 and the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 1185/2013, Rakesh Kumar Sagar v. Ravindra & Another, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rurdrapur, Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed. Inform the Court concerned accordingly.