Madhya Pradesh High Court

Daduram Rathore @ Gendlal Rathore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 March, 2021

Author: Vishnu Pratap Chauhan

           HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR


               Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 19877 / 2020


                    Daduram Rathore @ Gendlal Rathore

                                            Vs.

                    State of Madhya Pradesh and Another



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Shri Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
       Shri Ramji Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent
       No.1/State.
       Shri Ramsharan Rathore, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ORDER

(2.03.2021)

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

being aggrieved by the registration of FIR as Crime No.99/2020 at Police

Station Jaithari, District Anuppur for the offence punishable under

Sections 294, 323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section

3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. Facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that, respondent

No.2 lodged report at Police Station Jaithari, District Anuppur against the

petitioner alleging therein that, respondent No.2 was raising a boundary

wall along with her mother-in-law Shyamabai, husband Santosh Kol

and one person Mukund Kol. The petitioner appeared on the spot and

raised objection. He said that why they are raising boundary wall in his

land and started hurling filthy words. He also assaulted them by means

of iron rods. When respondent No.2 Sadhna Kori, her husband Santosh,

her mother-in-law Shyamabai and her neighbour Mukund Kol tried to

rescue, petitioner along with other persons started beaten them.

Thereafter respondent No.2 reported the matter and lodged FIR against

the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

the land belongs to the petitioner on which respondent No.2 tried to

raise the boundary wall. There was a civil dispute registered as Civil

Suit No.26-A/2013 between Sant Kumar, S/o. Daduram Rathore vs.

Gudda, S/o. Besahu Kori and another (i.e. between the son of the

present petitioner and the husband of respondent No.2), in connection

with the disputed land, on which the boundary wall was being raised by

respondent no.2. In the said civil suit, learned Ist Additional District

Judge, Anuppur passed a decree in favour of the petitioner and directed

the family of respondent No.2 not to interfere in the possession of the

land, which is in title of the petitioner. Despite that, the respondent No.2

unnecessarily creating dispute and after encroaching the land tried to

construct the boundary wall. The petitioner only raised an objection and

stopped them to create the boundary wall, on which the respondent

No.2 party started quarrel with the petitioner and lodged a false report.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

had not utter any derogatory words pertaining to the caste of respondent

No.2. It is further submitted that, respondent No.2 is a member of

Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and she wrongly took the advantage

of her caste and registered a false case against the petitioner for the

offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST

(PO) Act. In such circumstances, prayer is made to quash the FIR

lodged against the petitioner, so also all the criminal proceedings

arising out of that FIR.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits

that the petitioner was well in knowledge that respondent No.2 belongs

to 'Kori' caste, which falls under SC/ST Castes, despite that, petitioner

utter filthy words. It is further submitted that petitioner also demolished

the boundary wall constructed by respondent no.2, in such

circumstances ingredients of aforementioned offence are made out

against the petitioner, therefore, prayer is made for dismissal of this

petition.

6. Learned panel Lawyer for the State also supported the

objection raised by respondent No.2.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record. Also perused the copy of judgment dated 19.12.2014 passed by

learned 1st Additional District Judge, Anuppur in Civil Suit No.26-

A/2013, annexed as A-5 (Sant Kumar S/o. Daduram Rathore vs. Gudda

S/o. Besahu Kori). After perusal of the judgment, it is reflected that,

respondent No.2 and petitioner are neighbours and there was dispute of

ownership and possession of land situated at Khasra no.798/2

admeasuring 0.184 hectare of which disputed area is 0.164 hectare and

new number of that disputed land is Khasra No.798/2/Kha. Learned

Civil Court after hearing both the parties passed decreed in favour of

the son of present petitioner and the family of respondent No.2 was

categorically prohibited to make any interference in the possession of

the above mentioned disputed land. It is prima facie reflected from the

documents filed along with this petition and documents collected

during investigation that, the respondent No.2 along with her family

members was raising a wall on the disputed land.

8. Perused the FIR lodged by respondent no.2. Respondent

No.2, in the said FIR, no where alleges that the petitioner utter any

derogatory words pertaining to her caste or lowered down her image at

public place. It is prima facie reflected that, the boundary wall which

was demolished by the petitioner was being constructed over the land

which was already declared in favour of the petitioner and the family

members of the respondent No.2 was prohibited to interfere in

possession of the petitioner. No doubt, in the FIR, the offence registered

under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PO) Act prima

facie not made out. So far as offence with regard to inflicting simple

injuries is concerned, there are prima facie evidence available against

the petitioner for that offence.

9. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Hitesh

Verma vs. The State of Uttarakhand and Another, reported in 2020

(10) SCC 710, discussed the ambit scope of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)

and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PO) Act and held that, if ingredients of the above

mentioned act is not made out, there is no need to mention the offence

in the FIR or in charge-sheet to that extent and quashed the charge-sheet

to that extent.

10. In the case in hand, a case was registered against the

petitioner for the offence under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of

the SC/ST Act. The provisions of Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v)

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;

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

Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;

3(2)(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of

1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or

more 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

imprisonment for life and with fine;

11. Perused the FIR. No doubt in the FIR it is no where

mentioned that, intentionally the petitioner humiliate the respondent

No.2 within the public view or used any derogatory words pertaining to

her caste in public. Hence, ingredients of both the offence, i.e. 3(1)(r)

and 3(1)(s) are not made out.

12. So far as offence under Sections 294, 323, 506 r/w 34 are

concerned, perused the statement of witnesses, so also other documents

and MLC report collected during investigation. Kandhai Kol, Shyama

Bai and Sadhna Kori received injuries and their X-ray were also taken.

No doubt there are sufficient ingredients of Section 294, 323 and 506 of

IPC are available against the petitioner.

13. Accordingly, there are some ingredients of the offence of