Digo @ Digvijay Somsinh Rajparmar vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 5839 Guj

                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




      R/SCR.A/8632/2019                               ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

                                                                                     undefined




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8632 of 2019
                                 With
            R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8277 of 2019
                                 With
            R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8441 of 2019
==========================================================
                    DIGO @ DIGVIJAY SOMSINH RAJPARMAR
                                   Versus
                             STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                 Date : 10/08/2023
                               COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. Since the issues involved in the present petitions

are identical in nature, Criminal Misc. Application No.8632 of 2019 is considered as leading matter.

2. The present petition is filed for seeking following

main reliefs:-

"[B] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and

set-aside the impugned FIR dated 24/08/2019, bearing

C.R. No. 1 31 of 2019 registered with Jetpur Pavi

Police Station, District: Chhotaudepur for the offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 427, 323,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

504, 506(2) of I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(va), 3(1)(R)

(S) Atrocities Amendment Act, 2015 as the same being

gross abuse and misuse of process of law, and in the

interest of justice;

[C] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of

the present petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be

pleased to pass order staying further proceedings of the

impugned FIR dated 24/08/2019, bearing C.R. No. I -

31 of 2019 registered with Jetpur Pavi Police Station,

District: Chhotaudepur for the offences punishable

under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 427, 323, 504,

506(2) of I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(va), 3(1)(R) (S)

Atrocities Amendment Act, 2015;

[D] An ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer

(C) above may kindly be granted;"

3. The impugned F.I.R. is lodged against the group of

persons under the provisions of Sections 143, 147, 148,

332, 427, 323. 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 and Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(R)(S) of the Atrocities

Amendment Act, 2015.

4. At the time of issuance of the notice on 30.8.2018

in Special Criminal Application No.8277 of 2019, this

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

Court has passed the following order:

1. The learned advocate for the petitioners does not

press this petition qua the offence under the provisions

of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Prima facie, it appears that required ingredient of

the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Scheduled

Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act

is that there should be averments to the effect that the

accused person does not belong to or member of the

SC/ ST Castes. Therefore, considering the decision

rendered in the case of Georige Pentaiah v/s. State of

Andra Pradesh reported in 2008 (12) SCC 531, present

petition deserves consideration.

3. Issue notice to the respondents, making it returnable

on 28.11.2019. Learned A.P.P. Mr.Pranav Trivedi waives

service of notice for the respondent - State.

4. Meanwhile, no coercive steps shall be taken against

the petitioners. However, the investigation may proceed

further in accordance with law. Direct service, qua

respondent No.2, through the concerned police station,

is permitted."

5. In view of the aforementioned order, the present

petition is not pressed qua the offences punishable under

the provisions of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

petitions are considered under the provisions of the

Atrocities Amendment Act, as alleged in the F.I.R. only.

6. Brief facts as per the case of the applicant in this

application are as such that on the occasion of

Janmashtami, the complainant, who is a constable, was

on duty patrolling along with two other constables with

his private swift car. While they were in the Moti Bazar

Area, they encountered residents engaging in playing

cards and gambling activities. Upon noticing the presence

of the officers, the individuals involved swiftly dispersed

and fled from the said scene. After a period of time, the

crowd reassembled and began throwing stones at the

officers, resulting in the shattering of both the front and rear glass of their car. The crowd then proceeded to

engage in arguments and verbal abuse directed at the

officers. Consequently, the officers decided to leave for

the police station, with the crowd following closely behind

them. It is further the case of the petitioner in this

petition are as such that upon arriving at the police

station, accused Nos. 1 and 2 physically assaulted the

complainant by grabbing his collar, subjecting him to a

beating, tearing his T-shirt, and using derogatory

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

remarks related to his caste. Following this, accused Nos.

3 to 12, along with a larger crowd consisting of

approximately 100 to 150 individuals, proceeded to

verbally abuse the complainant and issued threats him

with dire consequences. Hence, the present petition is

preferred.

7. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.P. Majmudar for the

applicant in Special Criminal Application Nos. 8277 &

8441 of 2019 and Mr. Jaydeep Sindhi, learned advocate

appearing for the applicant in Special Criminal

Application No.8632 of 2019, Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the respondent

No.1 - State as well as the complainant - Police.

8.1 Learned advocate Mr. P.P. Majmudar as well as

Mr. Jaydeep Sindhi, learned advocates appearing for the

applicant(s) have submitted that on bare reading of the

impugned F.I.R., no ingredients of the offences under the

provisions of the Atrocities Amendment Act are satisfied.

They have submitted that the complaint is filed by

giving name of some of the individuals from big

gathering by police personnel, who as per the F.I.R. was

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

patrolling along with others and found that some persons

were playing with cards and doing gambling activity and

therefore, they tried to caught them. Subsequently,

members of the gathering attacked the complainant,

using abusive language and causing damage to their

vehicles. Therefore, the offence is invoked under the

provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as the

Atrocities Amendment Act, 2015, but no ingredients of

the Atrocities Amendment Act, 2015 are satisfied and

more particularly, the group of the persons would not be

knowing about the caste of the police personnel.

Furthermore, they highlight that the incident occurred

suddenly and without any specific attribution to a

particular person, thereby suggesting that no offense can be established against any individual. They have

contended that, as per Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(R)(S) of

the Atrocities Amendment Act, 2015, the incident should

have occurred in a public place.

8.2 The advocates additionally point out that the

impugned F.I.R. indicates that the incident took place

with the intent to intentionally insult or intimidate a

member of the SC/ST category, but they argue that

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

these ingredients are not satisfied. They have drawn

attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Gorige Pentaiah versus State of Andhra

Pradesh, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531, wherein the

accused persons' caste was not disclosed.

8.3 They have placed reliance upon the judgments of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of (i) Gorige

Pentaiah (supra), and (ii) Hitesh Verma versus State of

Uttarakhand and Another reported in 2020 SCC online

(SC) 907. He has also relied on the judgment of the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dhirabhai

Kodarbhai Khant & Others versus State of Gujarat and

Another rendered in Special Criminal Application No.2824

of 2016 dated 5.5.2016, and has submitted that these judgments are consisting almost identical facts and the

impugned F.I.R. does not disclose any offence qua the

Atrocities Amendment Act, and also does not satisfied

necessary ingredients as required under the law. They

have prayed that the petitions be allowed, citing the

Hon'ble Apex Court's ruling in the case of State of

Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604,

and have contended that continuing with such

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of

law, subjecting the petitioner(s) to harassment.

9. In contrast, Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (APP) for the respondent No.1 - State

has strongly objected the contentions raised by the

learned advocates for the petitioner(s) and has contended

that prima facie there is specific allegation made against

all the accused persons and when huge mob is gathered

and complaint is lodged against the members of such

mob by giving some specific names in the complaint and

by giving specific version about the occurrence of

incident, prima facie, ingredients under the provisions of

the Atrocities Amendment Act are attracted. He has also

submitted that such contentions raised by the petitioner can be tested at the time of trial. He has further

submitted that this Court should not exercise the powers

under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which

should be exercised very sparingly, more specifically,

considering the fact that provisions of the Atrocities

Amendment Act are of specific statute. Therefore, he has

prays to dismiss the petition(s).

10.1 I have considered the rival submission raised at the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

bar. Additionally, I have considered the tenor of F.I.R. It

is revealed that prima facie, the F.I.R. is registered

under the under the stipulations of both the Indian

Penal Code and the Atrocities Amendment Act. Qua the

Indian Penal Code, the present petition(s) is not pressed

and hence the provisions of the Indian Penal Code are

not taken into account in this context.

10.2 It is relevant to refer the provisions of Sections 3(2)

(va) and 3(1)(R)(S) of the Atrocities Amendment Act, as

under:

"3(2)(va) Commits any offence specified in the Schedule,

against a person or property, knowing that such person

is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled

Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall

be punishable with such punishment as specified under

the Indian Penal Code for such offences and shall also

be liable to fine;

3(1)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent

to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a

Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;

3(1)(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a

Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

public view;"

10.3 Furthermore, considering the aforementioned sections

that have been invoked, it becomes evident that the

impugned First Information Report (F.I.R.) lacks a

specific allegation regarding the individual who made the

statement, i.e., the petitioner's caste. Additionally, there

is no explicit reference to utterances that would trigger

the application of any provisions within the Atrocities

Amendment Act, as claimed in the F.I.R. Moreover,

throughout the entirety of the impugned F.I.R., there is

no disclosure made about the caste of the accused

person(s). This lack of disclosure is an essential, in line

with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of Gorige Pentaiah versus State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531, more particularly Paras :

5 to 8 and 12 thereof, which read as under :

"5. Learned counsel appearing for the

appellant submitted that even if all the

allegations incorporated in the complaint are

taken as true, even then, no offence is made

out under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

as "the Act") and under Sections 447, 427,

506 of the Indian Penal Code. As far as

Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is concerned, it

reads as under :

"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."

6. In the instant case, the allegation of

respondent No.3 in the entire complaint is

that on 27.5.2004, the appellant abused them

with the name of their caste. According to the

basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act,

the complainant ought to have alleged that

the accused-appellant was not a member of

the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and

he (respondent No.3) was intentionally

insulted or intimidated by the accused with

intent to humiliate in a place within public

view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is

mentioned that the accused-appellant was not

a member of the Scheduled Caste or a

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted

or intimidated with intent to humiliate

respondent No. 3 in a place within public

view. When the basic ingredients of the

offence are missing in the complaint, then

permitting such a complaint to continue and

to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole

of the criminal trial would be totally

unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.

7. Similarly, we find that the ingredients

of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code are

totally absent in the complaint. In the

complaint it is not even mentioned that the

accused had intimidated or threatened the

complainant or any one else. In absence of

basic ingredients of the section in the

complaint, no case under section 506 IPC can

be sustained. Section 506 reads as under :

"Whoever commits, the offence of

criminal intimidation shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term

which may extend to two years, or with fine,

or with both".

8. "Criminal intimidation" has been

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

defined in Section 503 which reads as under :

"Whoever threatens another with any

injury to his person, reputation or property,

or to the person or reputation of any one in

whom that person is interested, with intent to

cause alarm to that person, or to cause that

person to do any act which he is not legally

bound to do, or to omit to do any act which

that person is legally entitled to do, as the

means of avoiding the execution of such

threat, commits criminal intimidation."

12. This court in a number of cases has

laid down the scope and ambit of courts'

powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. Every High

Court has inherent power to act ex debito

justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for

the

administration of which alone it exists, or to

prevent abuse of the process of the court.

Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can

be exercised :

(i) to give effect to an order under the

Code;

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

court, and

(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of

justice.

Inherent powers under section 482

Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised

sparingly, carefully and with great caution

and only when such exercise is justified by

the tests specifically laid down in this section

itself. Authority of the court exists for the

advancement of justice. If any abuse of the

process leading to injustice is brought to the

notice of the court, then the Court would be

justified in preventing injustice by invoking

inherent powers in absence of specific

provisions in the Statute."

10.4 It is also fruitful to refer the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma versus

State of Uttarakhand and Another reported in 2020 SCC

online (SC) 907, it is held in paragraphs 11 to 15, 16

and 18, as under:

"11. It may be stated that the charge-sheet

filed is for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of

the Act. The said section stands substituted

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

by Act No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016. The

substituted corresponding provision is Section

3(1)(r) which reads as under:

"3(1)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates

with intent to humiliate a member of a

Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any

place within public view;"

12. The basic ingredients of the offence

under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be

classified as "1) intentionally insults or

intimidates with intent to humiliate a

member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled

Tribe and 2) in any place within public

view".

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

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 and Ors.

v. State through Standing Counsel and Ors.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

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.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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

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

p13. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

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.lace 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

or private bodies."

15. As per the FIR, the allegations of

abusing the informant were within the four

walls of her building. It is not the case of

the informant that there was any member of

the public (not merely relatives or friends) at

the time of the incident in the house.

Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words

were uttered "in any place within public

view" is not made out. In the list of

witnesses appended to the charge-sheet,

certain witnesses are named but it could not

be said that those were the persons present

within the four walls of the building. The

offence is alleged to have taken place within

the four walls of the building. Therefore, in

view of the judgment of this Court in

Swaran Singh, it cannot be said to be a

place within public view as none was said to

be present within the four walls of the

building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet."

16. There is a dispute about the possession

of the land which is the subject matter of

civil dispute between the parties as per

respondent No.2 herself. Due to dispute,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

appellant and others were not permitting

respondent No.2 to cultivate the land for the

last six months. Since the matter is

regarding possession of property pending

before the Civil Court, any dispute arising on

account of possession of the said property

would not disclose an offence under the Act

unless the victim is abused, intimated or

harassed only for the reason that she belongs

to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not

established merely on the fact that the

informant is a member of Scheduled Caste

unless there is an intention to humiliate a

member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled

Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs

to such caste. In the present case, the parties

are litigating over possession of the land. The

allegation of hurling of abuses is against a

person who claims title over the property. If

such person happens to be a Scheduled

Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the

Act is not made out."

10.5 It is also fruitful to refer the jjudgment of the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dhirabhai

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

Kodarbhai Khant (supra), whereby F.I.R. was filed

against a mob by the Police Personnel, invoking the

provisions of the Atrocities Amendment Act in

conjunction with the Indian Penal Code, within an

almost identical factual scenario. The pertinent

paragraphs of that judgment are 2, 3, and 7 to 9, as

outlined below:

"2. It is the case of the prosecution that the

complainant, namely Mr. Dineshkumar Kantibhai,

Unarmed Police Constable, Buckle No. 707, on

24.03.2016, lodged a complaint in relation to an

incident that took place on 23.03.2016, at the time of

lighting holi at village Nana Vadadala. Some of the

accused got infuriated and the mob had man-handled

the police personnel by using derogatory words and also

had caused injuries, which during the course of medical

treatment resulted into death of one of the injured

persons.

3. It is emphasized by the learned Advocate, Mr.

Mangukiya, that the entire reading of the FIR does not

reveal offence punishable under the Atrocities Act.

According to him, under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities

Act, insult or intimidation needs to be in public view.

The clause (v) of sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

provides that any offence under the Indian Penal Code

if committed, punishable with imprisonment for a term

of 10 years or more against a person or property of

the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes on the gro1.

At the outset, learned Advocate, Mr. Mangukiya,

appearing for the petitioners, submits that he DOES

NOT PRESS this petition so far as the offence under

the provisions of the Indian Penal Code are concerned

in the complaint being I-C.R. No. 22 of 2016, lodged

with Lunawada Police Station and the challenge, in

this petition, is restricted to the offence punishable

under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act ('The

Atrocities Act', for short) only.und that such persons

belongs to such community, it shall be punishable with

imprisonment for life and with fine and that is not the

case, here. It is, therefore, urged that FIR qua these

provisions need to be quashed.

7. This Court has examined the complaint and the

statements of the witnesses. The only person, who

belongs to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribe

is the complainant, who is also a police personnel and

he, except, stating that the mob and some of the

present petitioners (accused), who are named by him,

abused him while they were also armed with lethal

weapons. However, there does not appear to be any

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

utterances much less in the direct public view, as

required under Section3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. It

is1. At the outset, learned Advocate, Mr. Mangukiya,

appearing for the petitioners, submits that he DOES

NOT PRESS this petition so far as the offence under

the provisions of the Indian Penal Code are concerned

in the complaint being I-C.R. No. 22 of 2016, lodged

with Lunawada Police Station and the challenge, in

this petition, is restricted to the offence punishable

under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act ('The

Atrocities Act', for short) only. not the case that the

offence is committed against the complainant or others

because they belong to the Scheduled Castes or the

Scheduled Tribes.

8. This Court is conscious of the fact that offence

under the IPC are serious in nature, and therefore, it

is also specifically inquired with the IO, as to whether

there is any material which would indicate that any

utterances by the accused, which would amount to

insult or humiliation to the members of the Scheduled

Castes or the Scheduled Tribes as alleged in the FIR

get revealed and as held by the Apex Court in the

case of "ASMATHUNNISA VS. STATE OF A.P."

(Supra).

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

9. The words "in any place but within public view"

have been interpreted by Apex Court holding that the

public must view the person being insulted for which

he must be present and no offence on the allegation

under the said section gets attracted, if, the person is

not present. There is nothing on the record to indicate

that humiliating words had been, as alleged in the

complaint, were uttered by the petitioners, herein,

thereby, attracting the provisions of Section 3(i) x) of

the Atrocities Act. In the opinion of this Court,

therefore, the incident in question does not attract any

of the provisions of the Atrocities Act. Deceased as the

officer recording complaint has stated in his statement,

as an injured person, that complainant was humiliated,

whereas, in fact, those words are missing in the

complainant's version totally, who belongs to the

Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes."

10.6 Furthermore, considering the fact that on bare

reading of the F.I.R., no ingredients under the provisions

of the Atrocities Amendment Act can be applied in the

facts and circumstances of the present case, lodging of

such F.I.R. under such provision in the present facts of

the case will amount to abuse of process of law by the

Police Authority. Hence, no fruitful purpose would be

served in continuing this proceeding arising pursuant to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

impugned F.I.R. resulting into harassment to the

accused(s) in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana V/s

Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus -

"In the backdrop of the interpretation of the

various relevant provisions of the Code under

Ch.XIV and of the principles of law

enunciated by this court in a series of

decisions relating to the exercise of the

extraordinary power under Art.226 or the

inherent powers under sec.482 of the Code

which we have extracted and reproduced

above, we give the following categories of

cases by way of illustration wherein such

power could be exercised either to prevent

abuse of the process of any court or

otherwise to secure the ends of justice,

though it may not be possible to lay down

any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently

channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid

formulae and to give an exhaustive list of

myriad kinds of cases wherein such power

should be exercised.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

(1) Where the allegations made in the first

information report or the complaint, even if

they are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima facie

constitute any offence or make out a case

against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first

information report and other materials, if

any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a

cognizable offence, justifying an investigation

by police officers under sec.156(1) of the Code

except under an order of a Magistrate within

the purview of sec.155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations

made in the FIR or complaint and the

evidence collected in support of the same do

not disclose the commission of any offence

and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not

constitute a cognizable offence but constitute

only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation

is permitted by a police officer without an

order of a Magistrate as contemplated under

sec.156(2) of the Code.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or

complaint are so absurd and inherently

improbable on the basis of which no prudent

person can ever reach a just conclusion that

there is sufficient ground for proceeding

against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar

engrafted in any of the provisions of the

Code or the concerned Act (under which a

criminal proceeding is instituted) to the

institution and continuance of the proceedings

and/or where there is a specific provision in

the Code or the concerned Act, providing

efficacious redress for the grievance of the

aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fide and/or where the

proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the

accused and with a view to spite him due to

private and personal grudge."

10.7 In light of the aforementioned discussions, I am of

the opinion that this is a fit case where this Court

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/8632/2019 ORDER DATED: 10/08/2023

undefined

should exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of

the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by quashing the

impugned F.I.R. qua the Atrocities Amendment Act to

prevent the abuse of process of law.

11. Accordingly, the present captioned petition(s) are

allowed with the aforesaid extent.

12. The impugned F.I.R. dated 24.08.2019, bearing C.R.

No.I 31 of 2019 registered with Jetpur Pavi Police

Station, District: Chhotaudepur as well as consequential

proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. are hereby

quashed and set aside qua the Atrocities Amendment

Act.

Rule is made absolute.

(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA