The High Court of Jharkhand quashed proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 353, 504, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C and section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act and held that the expression “place within public view” should not be confused with the expression “public place” and a place can be a private place but yet within the public view.

Brief Facts:

The petition was filed for quashing of the case registered under sections 353, 504, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C and section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 after an allegation was made against the deceased for theft of electricity after which the petitioner, who was working in the house of the informant faced abuse to his caste by the people who came to visit the informant.

Contentions of the Applicant:

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the case was unnecessarily registered against the deceased as he had already left for his heavenly abode and the entire allegation is made against a dead person and now the petitioner has been called upon by the police to join the investigation. It was further argued that even there is no averment that the petitioner is not belonging to the caste of the informant and the public view, which is one of the ingredients, is also not made out.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the case was case registered and the petitioner was rightly called upon.

Observations of the Court:

The court after going through the two FIRs stated that the case was registered against the deceased and even assuming that the registration of the case under the Indian Electricity Act was there, in ignorance of the non-transfer of the said consumer in the name of the present petitioner, the question remains how the case under the I.P.C as well as the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be made out against a person who has already left for his heavenly abode. The court further stated that in the FIR, there was no disclosure of the fact that the petitioner was not belonging to the caste of the informant.

The court further referred to the judgment in Swaran Singh And Others v. State Through Standing Counsel and Another which held that even if a remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view and the expression “place within public view” should not be confused with the expression “public place” and a place can be a private place but yet within the public view to concluding that the case of the petitioner was covered in the said judgment and was more strengthened in view of the fact that the case has been lodged against a dead person wherein there is no allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R.

The decision of the Court:

The court allowed the petition and quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner.   

Case Title: Gajadhar Nath Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 1846 of 2015

Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary  

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com

Picture Source :

 
Kritika