Allahabad High Court
Saurabh (Minor) And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 March, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17242 of 2020
Applicant :- Saurabh (Minor) And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Naresh Shukla,Ram Pratap Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar Gupta
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard counsel for the applicants as well as counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 and perused the record.
Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 states that no compromise is possible in the matter, as such, the matter shall be heard on merits.
I have perused the FIR wherein it was stated that on 5.6.2020 at about 7 p.m., the alleged accused near the Kuiya Modh started abusing and threaten to kill the informant and attacked him. No description of caste related words was used in the FIR in question, however, in the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC caste related words has been mentioned. In the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttrakhand and another, AIR 2020 SC 5584, the Supreme Court had the occasion to interpret the scope of Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act prior to its amendment, it is pari materia to Section 3 (1) (r) of the SC/ST Act and recorded as under:
"13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No. 2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent No. 2 is member of Scheduled Caste.
14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Ors, 2008 8 SCC 435. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was held that if an 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, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. The Court held as under:
"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 "chamar") 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 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.""
In my view, there is nothing on record even in the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC to indicate that the act was done in public view or to insult or intimidation was only on the ground of the fact that the victim was belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
With regard to summoning of the applicants under Section 3 (2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, it is essential for summoning a person under the said section that there should be on record material to suggest that the offence was committed by a person knowing that the victim is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member. In the present case, there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the applicants were aware of the caste of the informant, as such, the summoning of the applicants under Section 3 (2)(va) of the SC/ST Act is also not made out. Accordingly, the summoning order in Criminal Case No. 31 of 2020 arising out of Crime No. 244 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 (1) (r), Section 3 (1) (s) and Section 3 (1) (va) of the SC/ST Act is set aside to the extent of summoning of the applicants under Sections Section 3 (1) (r), Section 3 (1) (s) and Section 3 (1) (va) of the SC/ST Act.
Let the matter now be tried before the regular Court for the offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC only.
The application is disposed off in terms of the said order.
Order Date :- 18.3.2021
vinay
