Delhi High Court
Rekha Aggarwal & Anr vs State on 27 January, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl.Rev.P. 142/2005
Reserved on: 18.01.2012
Pronounced on: 27.01.2012
REKHA AGGARWAL & ANR ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Suman Kapoor, Adv.
Versus
STATE ...... Respondent
Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J.
1. The present revision is being preferred to challenge the impugned order
of charge dated 29.01.2005 passed by the learned ASJ whereby the learned ASJ
ordered framing of charges under section 3(1) (x) of the SC & ST Act.
2. The facts necessitating the present revision petition are that, on a
complaint lodged by Vinod Kumar, Umesh Kumar, Surender Chander, Harpal
Singh and Umashankar in P.S. Kalkaji, New Delhi a case under section 3(1) (x)
of the SC & ST Act was sought to be lodged wherein it was alleged that
accused Rekha Aggarwal and accountant R.P. Malhotra hurled caste related
remarks against the complainants. The complainants stated that on 14.09.2001,
accused Rekha Aggarwal and R.P. Malhotra called their colleague Harpal from
his duty and asked him to emulate a cock and when he refused to do so he was
subsequently beaten by R.P. Malhotra. He also abused the complainant Harpal
and when the other complainant went to save Harpal, they were also abused by
saying that saalo, churo, chamaro, bhangiyo tumahari okat gandagi (mella)
uthana hai. Tum log hamare pass kya karne aagaye and pushed them out of
the chamber.
3. The challan was presented before the Magistrate and the case was
committed to the Court of learned ASJ on 29.4.2004.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ingredients of
the section 3 (1) (x) of the Act which require that the act to constitute an
offence under this section it has to be proved that the caste based remarks were
made in "public view" as contemplated in the section. The counsel for the
petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in Daya Bhatnagar and Others
Vs. State 109 (2004) DLT 915 wherein it was held that the presence of one or
more neutral or impartial witness would constitute the definition of "public
view" as required to attract the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
5. This Court in Daya Bhatnagar and Ors (Supra) held that the accused
must have knowledge or awareness that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste
or Scheduled Tribe community and if an accused does not know that the person
whom he is insulting, intimidating or humiliating is a member of a Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe, no offence under the section would be constituted. It
was also held that the expression „public view‟ in section 3(1) (x) of the Act
implied within view of a group of people of the place/locality/village not linked
with the complainant through any kinship, business, commercial or any other
vested interest, and who are not participating members with him in any way.
The offending expressions, therefore, should be uttered by the persons accused,
in view of others unconnected with the complainant.
6. After a detailed perusal of the complaint as well as the evidence
available on record, it can safely be concluded that there were no other person
present at the place of incident besides the complainants and the accused
persons. This fact has been supported by the statements of the complainants as
well as by their complaints.
7. In the case of Daya Bhatnagar (supra) it was held that to attract the
ingredients of section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the presence of neutral and impartial
person is necessary and a must to attract an offence under section 3(x) of the
Act. In the present case, at the time of the alleged incident, there were no
independent person present at the spot besides the complainants themselves and
the complainants cannot be considered to be impartial/neutral.
8. Therefore, offence under section 3(x) of the Act is not made out against
the present petitioner and thereby this petition is allowed. The summoning
order stands quashed as against the present petitioners.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
JANUARY 27, 2012
