The High Court of Punjab and Haryana while quashing an FIR against a Times Now journalist accused of hurling casteist remarks stated that the Court cannot presume that the accused was aware of the victim's caste or tribal identity and the primary burden was on the complainant to establish this knowledge, which they did not state and neither the State nor the complainant mentioned that the petitioner was aware of the victim's caste, and their conspicuous silence speaks more than the words.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed by a journalist working for Times Now seeking quashing of FIR under Section 482, for quashing for FIR under Sections 279, 337, 427 IPC and Section 3(x) and 4 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989, Sections 3(x) and 4 deleted and Section 3(s) of the SC/ST Act added later on.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the FIR is politically motivated, concocted and throttles the voice of the media. He further submitted that the mensrea is a necessary ingredient for all criminal offences and offences under section 3(s) of the SCSTPOA, the knowledge that the victim belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category is an essential ingredient, and there has to be an intention to commit an offence. Even if all the allegations made in the FIR and evidence collected during the investigation are accepted as true and correct (without admitting or conceding), those do not reveal that the petitioner committed the act because the victim belonged to the scheduled caste or knew her caste.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the investigation is at its nascent stage; the petitioner intended to insult the complainant by hurling casteist abuses and violated S. 3(s) of SCSTPOA and further contended that all the ingredients of the penal offences invoked in FIR are fully engrained in the complaint, and it is not the stage for quashing FIR.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that the offences under Sections 279, and 337 IPC are attributed to the vehicle's driver and as far as the offence under Section 427 IPC is concerned, it relates to the damage of a mobile phone that had fallen because of the impact of an accident. It was stated by the court that it would be a travesty of justice to arrive at a finding of a prima facie case that the petitioner, who was not driving and was a passenger, had caused impact with the vehicle with the intention or knowledge that the driver will cause an accident, the phone that the victim might be carrying would fall, which in turn would cause a loss of more than Rs.50 and thus by such an imagination, the ingredients of mischief could not have been invoked against the petitioner.
Further, on the allegations relating to the passing of casteist remarks, the court stated that the offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of a Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste and further there is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable.
The court further stated that it was undisputed that the accused/petitioner had no personal knowledge of the victim's or her family's caste and the court cannot presume that the accused was aware of the victim's caste or tribal identity.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.
Case Title: Bhawana Gupta vs. State of Punjab and anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara
Case No.: CRM-M-47819-2023 (O&M)
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. R.S. Rai, Mr. Chetan Mittal, Mr. Pawan Narang and Mr. Mayank Aggarwal
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala and Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
