Allahabad High Court
Munnu And 11 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 August, 2021
Bench: Anil Kumar Ojha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2678 of 2021
Appellant :- Munnu And 11 Others
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Raj Kumar Khanna,Amber Khanna,Sandal Khanna
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A,Syed Ahmed Faizan
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.
Appellants have preferred this criminal appeal against the order dated 9.2.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST) Amroha in Complaint Case No. 45 of 2019 (Gajendra Vs. Munnu and others) whereby learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) has summoned the appellants under Section 452 read with Section 149 I.P.C., 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C., 506 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) SC/ST Act, to face the trial.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of appellants is that respondent no.2 Gajendra filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Special Judge, Amroha to register a case against appellants at P.S.-Naugawan Sadat, District- Amroha. It was alleged in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that accused persons belong to his village and are 'Yadav' by caste. They are pressuring the complainant to entered into compromise in Crime No. 131 of 2019. When complainant refused to do so then Mannu, Gajendra, Ashok, Tejpal, Dinesh, Shekhar, Kaluwa, Priyanshu on 30.5.2019 at about 4:00 P.M. in the evening, armed with sticks, barged into the house of complainant and started insulting him by naming caste 'Chamar/Chamatte' and beaten him by kicks and fists. Accused Mahesh tried to strangulate him.
Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act instead of registering the case, passed the order treating the application as complaint.
Statement of complainant Gajendra was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Statements of witnesses C.W.-1 Sompal and C.W.2 Mahipal were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
After hearing the complainant, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act summoned the appellants to face the trial in the offences stated above.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that offences have been allegedly said to have been committed within the four walls of the house of complainant. Hence, offences under Section 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act are not made out. As offences have been committed within the house of complainant so it cannot be said that offences have been committed within public view. He further submitted that the case against appellants is malafide. One more case relating to SC/ST Act is already pending in the court. Appeal be allowed and summoning order dated 9.2.2021 be set aside.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for respondent no.2 Gajendra opposed the above submission and contended that appellants are committing scuffle(marpeet) with complainant and insulting him again and again. Appeal has no merits and should be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellants drew attention of court towards Section 3(1(r) & 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act which are as follows:
"3(1)(r): intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
3(1)(s): abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view; "
In Swaran Singh & Ors. Vs. State Through Standing Counsel & Anr. (2009 All. C.J. 751), the Hon. Apex Court has held that if alleged offence has been committed inside a building then it cannot be said that offence was committed within public view.
Para 28 and 34 of the aforesaid Hon. Authority of the Apex Court is quoted below:
"28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a 'Chamer') when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could not have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression 'place within public view' with the expression 'public place'. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.
34. However, a perusal of the F.I.R. shows that Swaran Singh did not not use these offensive words in the public view. There is noting in the F.I.R. to show that any member of the public was present when Swaran Singh uttered these words, or that the place where he uttered them was a place which ordinarily could be seen by the public. Hence in our opinion no prima facie is made out against appellant no.1."
Complainant Gajendra in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that on 30.5.20219 at 4:00 PM, appellants forcibly entered into his house and beaten him and uttered words naming his caste and also threatened to kill him. Accused Mahesh tried to strangulate him.
Witnesses C.W.-1 Sompal and C.W.-2 Manipal have also deposed the same fact.
As in view of the authority of Hon. Apex Court in Swaran Singh & Ors. Vs. State Through Standing Counsel & Anr. (2009 All. C.J. 751) alleged offences under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act have been committed inside the house of complainant. So, I am of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that offences were committed within public view.
So far as the allegation of strangulation is concerned, no injury report of the complainant is on record. It has also been admitted that one more case relating to SC/ST Act is pending in the court between the parties.
Learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State could not give satisfactory answer of the aforesaid argument relating to commission of offence within public view.
The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned order dated 9.2.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, is not within the four-corners of law, therefore cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, appeal succeeds and is allowed.
Order dated 9.2.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act is set aside.
Matter is remitted to the lower court concerned to pass orders afresh, after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties, in the light of observations made in the body of judgment.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021
CS/-
