NC: 2025:KHC-K:3229
HC-KAR
8. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for
the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the
Honourable Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma
versus The State of Uttarakhand & Another in SLP
(Criminal) No.3585/2020. He specifically drew the
attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 16,
which read as under:
"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 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
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3229
HC-KAR
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.
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, 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."
9. Per Contra, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned
High Court Government Pleader contended that the
complaint is lodged though belatedly would make out a
case for registration of the FIR and police are bound to
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3229
HC-KAR
register the FIR as per the provisions of the BNSS, 2023 if
there is a cognizable offence made out in the complaint.
10. He also contends that mere registration of the
FIR cannot be called in question, especially when the
investigation is under process.
11. He would further contend that the petitioner
can always challenge the chargesheet, if filed, and this
Court cannot hold a mini trial to find out the veracity of
the averments made in the complaint.
12. It is the further contention of Sri Jamadar
Shahabuddin that complaint is not an encyclopedia to
contain all necessary details and even the question of
delay needs to be investigated by the investigation agency
and thereafter file appropriate report as is contemplated
under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the very prayer of
the petitioner is too premature and sought for dismissal of
petition.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3229
HC-KAR
13. This Court in the light of the arguments of both
sides, perused the records. On such perusal, prima facie
materials are found in the complaint which would be
sufficient enough to invoke the provisions of SC/ST (POA)
Act, inasmuch in the complaint, very words with which the
petitioner allegedly have used to abuse the complainant is
found.
14. From the complaint itself it is found that the
incident has occurred on the public road i.e., in front of the
house of the petitioner.
15. No doubt, complaint does not contain who else
was present other than Gudusab at the time of incident.
These are all the matters which requires to be investigated
by the investigation agency thoroughly after recording the
statements of the witnesses and conducting necessary
spot mahazar etc.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3229
HC-KAR
16. Though there cannot be any dispute as per the
principles of law enunciated in Hitesh Verma's case
referred to supra, the facts and circumstances of the case
on hand, especially when the material available before the
Court is only the FIR, this Court is of the considered
opinion that those principles are not applicable to the case
on hand to allow the prayer of the petitioner by admitting
petition for further consideration.
17. Accordingly, following:
ORDER
(a) The petition is dismissed.
(b) However, dismissal of petition shall not
come in the way of the petitioner from
challenging the final report, if any, which is
prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner.
In view of disposal of main petition, pending
application, if any, does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
RSP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42/CT:PK
