Veeru @ Sumit Kumar Bhadauriya vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 6269 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Veeru @ Sumit Kumar Bhadauriya vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 March, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?AFR
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41732
 
Court No. - 75
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46549 of 2018
 

 
Applicant :- Veeru @ Sumit Kumar Bhadauriya
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjai Srivastava,Vijay Singh Sengar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Sanjai Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Ms. Ruchi Mishra, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. The instant application has been moved on behalf of the applicant challenging the charge sheet No.1/2017, dated 09.11.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of S.T. No.14/2018 (State vs. Pappan @ Pappal and another) in Case Crime No.244/2017, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (da)(dha) SC/ST Act, P.S. Kuthaund, District Jalaun, pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jalaun at Orai.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant and three other persons. Police, after investigation exonerated the co-accused persons, namely Pankaj and Shiv Kumar and filed a charge sheet against Pappan and present applicant Veeru, which is under challenge in the impugned proceeding.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the bare a perusal of the F.I.R. as well as the statement of opposite party no.2, it is clear that there is no allegation against the applicant for using casteist words, and the allegation is that the present applicant, along with other co-accused persons had beaten the opposite party no.2. Therefore, no case under Section 3(1) (da) and 3(1)(dha) is made out. At the most offence under Section 323 and 504, I.P.C. could not said to be prima facie made out, therefore, proceeding under the provision of SC/ST Act is absolutely illegal. In support of his contention learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. The State of Uttarakhand and another, 2020 10 SCC 710. The Apex Court has observed that in the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, charge sheet can also be quashed in part if certain sections incorrectly invoked against the accused persons.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has vehemently opposed and submitted that from the F.I.R. as well as statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the opposite party no.2 as well as the witnesses, it is clear that the applicant, along with other co-accused persons had beaten the opposite party no.2 and co-accused Pappan has also used casteist words against the opposite party no.2, therefore, offence under the provision of SC/ST Act is also made out against the applicant, and there is no illegality in the present proceeding. Learned A.G.A. has also adopted the argument advanced by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it appears that in the F.I.R. which was lodged by the opposite party no.2 as well as in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he clearly made the allegation against the shop owner Pappan for using casteist words. So far as the present applicant is concerned about him the allegation is that on calling by Pappan, he also reached on the spot and beaten the opposite party no.2 along with co-accused persons. From the perusal of record, it is clear that there is no allegation against the applicant that he used casteist words while beating the opposite party no.2. For making out the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act, it is necessary that a person must use casteist words in a place that is in public view. For reference Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) is quoted as under:-

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

(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;"

7. From the perusal of Section 3(1(r) of SC/ST Act, it is explicit that to attract liability under this Section he must intentionally insult or intimidate to humiliate to a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes. Not every intentional insult will result int caste-based humiliation. Therefore, the intention to humiliate must be inextricably linked with the caste identity of the victim.

8. The Apex Court also considered this issue in the case of Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC Online 2249, and observed that even insulting or intimidating a person belong to SC/ST with itself will not attract the liability under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. Unless there was an intention to humiliate such a person for the reason that person belongs to such community. Paragraph nos.60, 61, 70 and 80 of Shajan Skaria (supra) is being quoted as under:-

"60. Thus, the dictum as laid aforesaid is that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is not established merely on the fact that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, unless there is an intention to humiliate such a member for the reason that he belongs to such community. In other words, it is not the purport of the Act, 1989 that every act of intentional insult or intimidation meted by a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 merely because it is committed against a person who happens to be a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. On the contrary, Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is attracted where the reason for the intentional insult or intimidation is that the person who is subjected to it belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. We say so because the object behind the enactment of the Act, 1989 was to provide stringent provisions for punishment of offences which are targeted towards persons belonging to the SC/ST communities for the reason of their caste status.

a. Meaning of the expression "intent to humiliate" appearing in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989

61. The words "with intent to humiliate" as they appear in the text of Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are inextricably linked to the caste identity of the person who is subjected to intentional insult or intimidation. Not every intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a SC/ST community will result into a feeling of caste-based humiliation. It is only in those cases where the intentional insult or intimidation takes place either due to the prevailing practice of untouchability or to reinforce the historically entrenched ideas like the superiority of the "upper castes" over the "lower castes/untouchables", the notions of 'purity' and 'pollution', etc. that it could be said to be an insult or intimidation of the type envisaged by the Act, 1989.

70. In our considered view, it is in a similar vein that the term 'humiliation' as it appears in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 must be construed, that is, in a way that it deprecates the infliction of humiliation against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes wherein such humiliation is intricately associated with the caste identity of such members.

80. At the cost of repetition, the words in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are altogether different. Mere knowledge of the fact that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989. As discussed earlier, the offence must have been committed against the person on the ground or for the reason that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. When we are considering whether prima facie materials exist, warranting arrest of the appellant, there is nothing to indicate that the allegations/statements alleged to have been made by the appellant were for the reason that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste."

9. In the present case, there is no allegation that the present applicant insulted or intimidated the first informant only because of the reason that the first informant belongs to a Scheduled Caste but only allegation of beating, therefore, ingredients of an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act is not attracted.

10. Similarly, as per Section 3(1)(s), there must be hurling of abuse to a member of Scheduled Caste by using his caste name but in the present case, there is no such allegation against the applicant that he abuse the first informant by using his casteist word, therefore, ingredients of an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act is also not attracted.

11. In view of the above analysis, it is clear that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act are not made out against the applicant, but there is an allegation that the applicant has beaten the first informant, therefore, an offence under Section 323 and 504 I.P.C. are prima-facie made out against the applicant.

12. The question arises whether the impugned charge sheet can be quashed in part, or this issue can be seen at the time of framing of charges. This issue came for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra) wherein the Apex Court has observed in paragraph no.23 that a Section incorrectly invoked and Court finds that no offence is made out in that Section then the Court can quash the charge sheet in part in the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Paragraph No.23 of Hitesh Verma (supra) is quoted as under:-

"23. This Court in a judgment reported as Ishwar Pratap Singh & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, (2018) 13 SCC 612 held that there is no prohibition under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in part. In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court is required to examine as to whether its intervention is required for prevention of abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court held as under:

"9. Having regard to the settled legal position on external interference in investigation and the specific facts of this case, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice. There is no prohibition under law for quashing a charge-sheet in part. A person may be accused of several offences under different penal statutes, as in the instant case. He could be aggrieved of prosecution only on a particular charge or charges, on any ground available to him in law. Under Section 482, all that the High Court is required to examine is whether its intervention is required for implementing orders under the Criminal Procedure Code or for prevention of abuse of process, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. A charge-sheet filed at the dictate of somebody other than the police would amount to abuse of the process of law and hence the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 to the extent of the abuse. There is no requirement that the charge-sheet has to be quashed as a whole and not in part. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The supplementary report filed by the police, at the direction of the Commission, is quashed."

13. Given the above analysis, this Court of the view that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act is not made out against the applicant. However, an offence under Section 323, 504 I.P.C. is prima-facie made out for which court below may proceed. Consequently, the impugned charge sheet under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST is hereby quashed.

14. However, the court below is free to proceed under the Section 323 and 504 I.P.C.

Order Date :- 20.3.2025

Jitendra