Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Surendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 19th OF DECEMBER, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7261 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SHRI SURENDRA SINGH S/O LATE JASBIR SINGH, AGED ABOUT
62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD. TEACHER 47 VALLABH NAGAR
UDAIAN MARG UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI GULAB SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
1. THROUGH POLICE STATION AJAK (ST/SC ACT) UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
SUSHIL KUMAR GOTWAL VALLABH NAGAR UJJAIN (MADHYA
2.
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY Ms. HARSHLATA SONI, PANEL LAWYER)
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT No.2)
This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This criminal appeal under Section 14A of Scheduled Caste,
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "SC,
ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act") has been preferred against the
order dated 28.6.2022 passed by the Court of Special Judge (SC, ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Indore in Special Case No.140/2019,
whereby charges under Section 294, 427 of IPC and under Section
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
have been framed against the appellant.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant and non-
applicant No.2/complainant Sushil Gothwal are neighbors.
Complainant is a member of SC, ST community. He made a written
complaint dated 1.2.2018 to P.S., AJK, Ujjain to the effect that
appellant Surendra Singh and his wife co-accused Surendra Kaur used
to misbehave and insult the complainant and his family members
calling their caste and abused filthy languages. They harassed the
complainant mentally and physically to pressurize him to sell his
house saying that they will not allow him to live near side their house.
On 1.2.2018 appellant intentionally damaged the wall of complainant's
house and when complainant objected appellant abused filthy
languages and insulted him calling his caste and threatened to kill him.
Appellant's wife co-accused Surendra Kaur threatened him to
implicate him in a false case. Police after making enquiry lodged FIR
dated 15.3.2018 bearing Crime No.0013/2018 at P.S., AJK, Ujjain,
against the appellant and his wife co-accused Surendar Kaur for the
offences punishable under Section 294, 427, 506 of IPC and under
Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against
them before the Court of Special Judge (SC, ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act), Indore, wherein learned trial Court after appreciating
the evidence available on record vide impugned order framed the
charges against the appellant as aforementioned in para 1 of this order.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that complainant in
his written complaint dated 1.2.2018 made allegations against the
appellant that he alongwith his wife co-accused Surendar Kaur used to
insult and harass him as well as his family members calling his caste
and pressurize him to sell his house, but complainant did not mention
the specific date, time and place when and where appellant and his
wife insulted him and his family members calling his caste. He further
submits that complainant in his written complaint stated that on
1.2.2018 i.e. on the date of his written complaint, appellant damaged
the wall of his house and when complainant objected, he tried to have
quarrel with him. Complainant specifically stated that appellant
abused him filthy languages indicating his caste and threatened him.
Complainant nowhere stated the specific words spoken by the
appellant to the complainant, therefore, ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act do not attract against
the appellant. He submits that the either of the other offences i.e.
offences alleged against the appellant punishable under Section 294,
427, 506 of IPC, are not mentioned in the schedule, therefore, offence
under Section 3(2)(va) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is also
not made out against the appellant. FIR is forged, fabricated and
without basis. Hence, he be discharged from all the charges framed
against him.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the
judgment of High Court of Bombay in the case of Amardeep Singh
Chudha and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2016
SCC Online Bom 2286; Mannulal Garg and another Vs. State of
M.P.and another (order dated 27.3.2019 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.42429/2018), Naripati Rawat Vs. State of M.P.and
another (order dated 14.6.2018 passed in M.Cr.C.No.2313/2017).
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer
and submits that specific allegations are alleged against the appellant
and his wife, therefore, petition is devoid of merit and the same be
dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
7. Upon perusal of the record, it is apparent that complainant made
written complaint dated 1.2.2018 stating therein that on the said date
appellant damaged the wall of his house and when complainant
objected, then appellant tried to have quarrel with him. Complainant in
his complaint nowhere specifically mentioned that on 1.2.2018, which
specific words were uttered by the appellant, therefore, only making
general allegations that he abused in the filthy languages calling his
caste are not sufficient to attract the provisions of SC, ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act. It is also apparent that complainant in his written
complaint nowhere mentioned the fact that prior to the aforesaid
incident when and where appellant insulted him as well as his family
members calling their caste. It has also been not mentioned that what
exact threatening was given by her to the complainant and his family
members, therefore, ingredients of the offences punishable under the
provisions of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act do not attract in
the case.
8. So far as the offences punishable under the provisions of IPC
are concerned, specific allegation with regard to damage caused to the
wall of the complainant alongwith other allegations have been made
against him, therefore, it cannot be said that the offences punishable
under the provisions of IPC are not made out.
9. Consequently, considering the legal position mentioned in the
cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, this criminal
appeal instituted u/S 14 A of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is
partly allowed. The criminal proceedings pending against the
appellant under SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are hereby set
aside and he is discharged from the charges punishable under Section
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The impugned order dated 28.6.2022 passed by the Court of Special
Judge (SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act), Indore in Special Case
No.140/2019 is accordingly set aside.
10. The case is remanded back with a direction to take appropriate
steps for placing the case before the competent Court to frame
charges afresh and trial of the case.
Patil (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
Digitally signed by JUDGE
SHAILESH PATIL
Date: 2022.12.20
11:36:32 +05'30'
