Allahabad High Court
Panchu And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 February, 2023
Bench: Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16215 of 2013
Applicant :- Panchu And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- T.K. Mishra,Devi Prasad Tripathi,Mahesh Kumar Tripathi,Manish Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ruchita Jain
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. The name of learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 is mentioned in the cause list but she has not put in appearance in the court at the time of arguments.
By means of this application, the applicants seek to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court to quash the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 3266 of 2012, arising out of case crime no. 89 of 2012, State Vs. Panchu and others, under section 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, police station Garautha District Jhansi, pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Court No. 7,Jhansi.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that there is a cross FIR of the incident. The FIR No. 89-A of 2012 was lodged by the applicants' side on the same day of the incident at 13.25 hours under section 324, 325, 504, 506, 425 I.P.C. while the FIR of the present opp. party no. 2 was lodged at case crime no. 89 of 2012 under section 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act.
In the present case three persons are said to have sustained injuries. Ramadhar sustained five injuries which were found simple, caused by some hard and blunt object and by friction. Ramlali sustained three injuries and pain over left arm. All the three injuries were found to be simple in nature, caused by some hard and blunt object. Injury no. 4 was non-visible, so no opinion could be given about that injury. Ravindra sustained two injuries both were found to be simple in nature, caused by some hard and blunt object. While from the applicants side there were two injured persons. Injured Lalaram sustained five injuries. His injury nos. 1 and 2 were kept under observations and x-ray was advised. Rest injuries were found simple, caused by hard and blunt object. Injured Babu sustained two injuries. For injury no. 1 x-ray was advised. Injuries were found caused by some hard and blunt object. Injury no. 2 was simple. It is argued that if the FIR of the opp. party no. 2 is seen, there is no allegation of an offence under section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act. The only allegation is that Ramlali was abused and thrashed when the first informant and his son were going on a motorcycle along with Ramlali the applicants hurled abuses and hit the motorcycle by lathi due to which the son of the first informant fell down from the motorcycle and all the accused persons thrashed the first informant, his son Ravindra Kumar and Ramlali. All of them sustained injuries. It is also mentioned that the first informant is chamar by caste.
As per section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, there must be some intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe in any place, within public view but as per the FIR, no insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate the opp. party no. 2 or other two injured persons within public view has been alleged. Thus, the commission of an offence under section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act cannot be said to be made out. At the most, the offence can be said to be made out under section 323 and 504 I.P.C. Hence, the prayer is made accordingly.
Though the prayer is made to quash the entire proceedings of the case, but in the court the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants are confined to assail the charge of the offence under section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act. It is submitted that from perusal of the FIR, not even a single word mentioned therein is found that the caste based abuses were hurled by the applicants or those abuses were hurled with a view to humiliate the victim/ first informant in public view. In their statements also the victim and other witnesses including the first informant have not specifically disclosed the caste basted abuses allegedly hurled by the accused persons with a view to humiliate them in public view.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.
It is apposite to mention here section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act which was originally as under;
Section-3(1) Whoever not being a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe-
.
.
(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;"
As per above section the ingredients of the offence are "intentional insult, with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, in any place within the public view".
If we go through the version of the FIR or the statements of the victim, witnesses or the first informant, there is no whisper of hurling any caste based abuses by the applicants. There is no mention that the caste based abuses, if hurled, were with intent to humiliate the victim in a place within public view. Learned A.G.A. also could not demonstrate as to what caste based abuses were hurled by the accused persons. Whether those abuses were hurled in public view and that too with intent to humiliate the first informant ? As per judgment in Swaran Singh Vs. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 and Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andha Pradesh and others, (2008) 12 SCC 531, the Apex Court held that the accused who was not a member of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe must have intentional insult or intimidate the complainant with intent to humiliate him within public view.
Thus, from reading of the FIR, the statement of victim and witnesses, it is clear that the version of the victim/ first informant is bereft of necessary ingredient of section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act. The only version in the FIR is that the applicants hurled abuses to victim/ first informant and his son. Thus, mere hurling abuses cannot be said to be covered under the ingredients of the offence mentioned under section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act.
The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed and proceeding of case crime no. 3266 of 2012 arising out of case crime no. 89 of 2012, State Vs. Panchu and others, under section 323, 504 I.P.C. and under section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, police station Garautha, District Jhansi are quashed up to the extent of section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act only.
The case under section 504 and 323 I.P.C. shall proceed further accordingly.
It is however, made clear that if subsequently, during the course of trial, the evidence comes from which offence punishable under section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act is made out, the trial court would be free to take cognizance and proceed further in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 3.2.2023/Gss
