Kuldeep Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6443 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4066 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Kuldeep Verma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Madhav Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vivek Kumar Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

Heard.

By means of this petition, petitioner has sought quashing of the F.I.R. dated 26.05.2022 bearing Case Crime No.0074 of 2022 for the offence under Section 147, 332, 323, 504,506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act registered at Police Station-Hanswar, District-Ambedkar Nagar.

On 20.06.2022 the following order was passed:-

"The petitioner and the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 are present before the court and have been identified by their counsel Sri Vivek Kumar Pandey, Advocate, who has filed short counter affidavit on their behalf, which is taken on record.

Heard.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 have lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner bearing no. 0074 of 2022 under sections 147/332/323/504/506, I.P.C. and section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. We have read the F.I.R. A dispute appears to have arisen on account of demarcation of certain land which escalated. Opposite party no. 4 is the Lekhpal who had gone for demarcation-exercise and as he cannot drive vehicle, therefore, he was taken for the said task by his brother, who is opposite party no. 5. The opposite party nos. 4 and 5 who have appeared before this court in person and have stated that they had not seen the petitioner committing the crime, but his name was told by other villages and on their instigation they have lodged the F.I.R. against five unknown persons. They further say that it was a misunderstanding on their part and the petitioner was not involved in the said incident, hence they do not want to pursue the alleged criminal case as far as Kuldeep Singh, the petitioner herein is concerned.

We have perused short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party nos 4 and 5, which bears the photograph of opposite party no. 4 who is present. The opposite party no. 4 says that the opposite party no. 5 is his brother.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a recent decision of the Supreme Court of India dated 25.10.2021 rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1393 of 2011, Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, to drive home the point that even in case where the offence alleged is one under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the matter can be settled on certain grounds including the compromise/settlement. We, therefore, for convenience refer to paragraphs 15, 16, 19 and 20 of the said judgment which read as under:

"15. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper-castes. The Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-old objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities.

16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a 'special statute' would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.

17. Adverting to the case in hand, we note that the present Appellant has been charged and convicted under the unamended Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act (Section 3(1)(x) of the Act stands substituted by Act No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.01.2016.), which was as follows:

"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,?

xxxx

(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;

xxxx"

19. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in light of the aforestated principles, as well as having meditated on the application for compromise, we are inclined to invoke the powers under Article 142 and quash the instant Criminal proceedings with the sole objective of doing complete justice between the parties before us. We say so for the reasons that: Firstly, the very purpose behind Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST is to deter caste-based insults and intimidations when they are used with the intention of demeaning a victim on account of he/she belonging to the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe community. In the present case, the record manifests that there was an undeniable pre-existing civil dispute between the parties. The case of the Appellant, from the very beginning, has been that the alleged abuses were uttered solely on account of frustration and anger over the pending dispute. Thus, the genesis of the deprecated incident was the aforestated civil/property dispute. Considering this aspect, we are of the opinion that it would not be incorrect to categorise the occurrence as one being overarchingly private in nature, having only subtle undertones of criminality, even though the provisions of a special statute have been attracted in the present case.

Secondly, the offence in question, for which the Appellant has been convicted, does not appear to exhibit his mental depravity. The aim of the SC/ST Act is to protect members of the downtrodden classes from atrocious acts of the upper strata of the society. It appears to us that although the Appellant may not belong to the same caste as the Complainant, he too belongs to the relatively weaker/backward section of the society and is certainly not in any better economic or social position when compared to the victim. Despite the rampant prevalence of segregation in Indian villages whereby members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community are forced to restrict their quartes only to certain areas, it is seen that in the present case, the Appellant and the Complainant lived in adjoining houses.

Therefore, keeping in mind the socioeconomic status of the Appellant, we are of the opinion that the overriding objective of the SC/ST Act would not be overwhelmed if the present proceedings are quashed.

Thirdly, the incident occurred way back in the year 1994. Nothing on record indicates that either before or after the purported compromise, any untoward incident had transpired between the parties. The State Counsel has also not brought to our attention any other occurrence that would lead us to believe that the Appellant is either a repeat offender or is unremorseful about what transpired.

Fourthly, the Complainant has, on her own free will, without any compulsion, entered into a compromise and wishes to drop the present criminal proceedings against the accused.

Fifthly, given the nature of the offence, it is immaterial that the trial against the Appellant had been concluded.

Sixthly, the Appellant and the Complainant parties are residents of the same village and live in very close proximity to each other. We have no reason to doubt that the parties themselves have voluntarily settled their differences. Therefore, in order to avoid the revival of healed wounds, and to advance peace and harmony, it will be prudent to effectuate the present settlement.

CONCLUSION :

20. Consequently, and for the aforementioned reasons, we find it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and quash the criminal proceedings to do complete justice between the parties. As a sequel thereto, judgment and orders passed by the Trial Court and the High Court are set aside. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. The appeal is allowed in above terms."

Let the State file its response within two weeks.

List this case on 11.07.2022 as fresh.

The matter may be disposed of on the next date at the admission stage itself.

Investigation as regards the other accused, may go on, based on the F.I.R./Case Crime No. No. 0074 of 2022 under sections 147/332/323/504/506, I.P.C. and section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection thereof in view of what has been stated by the opposite party nos. 4 and 5/informants before us and also on affidavit, which is taken on record."

The only reason we had granted time and adjourned the matter was to have the version of the State but no such response has been filed by the State in spite of communication having been sent by the learned A.G.A. to the concerned official opposite party.

We have already noted the specific statement of opposite parties that the petitioner was implicated only on sayings of the villagers and that he had not committed the offence alleged in the F.I.R. A short counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 4 and 5 on the same lines. The dispute arose on account of demarcation exercise in the matter and under misconception the opposite party nos. 4 and 5 lodged the F.I.R. against the petitioner. As regard the other accused the proceedings can certainly go on. In the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2017 SC 2595 rendered in 'Lovely Salhotra and Ors. Vs. State NCT of Delhi and Ors.' it has been held that F.I.R. can be quashed in part also relating to some of the accused.

Considering the averments made in the short counter affidavit and those recorded by us in our earlier order quoted hereinabove, we are of the opinion that continuance of the proceedings in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R. would be of no avail as the offence has not been committed by the petitioner as admitted by opposite party nos. 4 and 5 informant herein and continuance of legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court in exercise of its power as is mentioned in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; Criminal Appeal No.1393 of 2021 quashes the impugned F.I.R. as far as it relates to the petitioner alone. It is made clear that as far as the other accused in the F.I.R. are concerned the investigation shall go on and the same shall be taken to its logical conclusion but the petitioner shall not be investigated/prosecuted hereinafter and so far as he is concerned the F.I.R. shall be treated as quashed.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 11.7.2022

Arti/-

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)