Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 March, 2022
Author: Rajendra Kumar (Verma)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2022
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3253 of 2021
Between:-
AJAY SINGH S/O JAGDISH CHANDRA KUSHWAH ,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
JOURNALISH SOMESHWAR MARG (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AKHIL GODHA, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THR. P.S. KOTWALI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SANTOSH SORASHTRIYA S/O PURALAL
OCCUPATION: NOT KNOWN KASHI NAGAR, P.S.
KOTWALI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI HEMANT SHARMA FOR THE STATE AND NONE FOR THE
COMPLAINANT THOUGH SERVED)
This revision coming on for ADMISSION this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Present revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being
aggrieved by the order dated 20.07.2021 in SST No.40/2021 passed by Special
Judge SC/ST (P.A) Act, Shajapur whereby the learned Special Judge has framed
the charges against the petitioner under Section 341, 292, 506 of IPC and under
Section 3(1) (s), 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(5-A) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, 1989.
According to the prosecution story, on 05.03.2020, the complainant has
given a written application to the station house officer alleging that he is the
resident of Kashinagar, Shajapur and indulded in the business. Previously, he was
working as an agent of H.B.N.Company and when he was working the company,
he made a fixed deposit of Rs.25000/- and 50000/- of one Sameer Khan and his
grandmother and agent code was given however, by the order of State of Madhya
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.03.11
15:46:37 IST
Pradesh the said company was closed and the amount so deposited was given by
the SEBI government because of which they demanded amount of fixed deposit
from me. It was further alleged that on 01/03/2020 one Mohsin Mirza S/o Sanavvar
journalist and Ajay Kushwah journalist came to my home and demanded money
from me and abused me and threatened me to kill me. On the basis of rthe
aforesaid complaint F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner and other accused
Mohsin Mirza at crime no. 94/2020 for the offence under section 341,294,506-B of
I.P.C. and section 3(1) (s), 3 (1) (r) and 3 (2) (5-A) of SC, ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed
by learned Special judge is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances on record.
. The learned trial Court has completely erred in not considering the fact that the
case of the prosecution is completely false and based on the concocted story, the
complainant has specifically mentioned in his application that the petitioner
alongwith one Mohsin Mirza has come to his house and abused him and demanded
money. It is also submitted that in case diary statements, the complainant has
stated that on the date of incident he was alone in his house and her wife also
stated the same. It is also submitted that on the application of co-accused Mohsin
Mirza after enquiry Superintendent of Police found that he was not present on the
spot at the time of incident and he was out of station i.e. in Ajmer Rajasthan. It is
also submitted that incident was occurred in the house of the complainant which is
not a place of public view. as per the provisions of the Act itself and as defined in
para nos.11 to 15 and 24 by the Full Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another passed in Criminal
Appeal No.707 of 2020 decided on 05.11.2020, the house is not under the
definition of public place or public view as specified in the Act. It is further
submitted that Mohsin Mirza has already been discharged on the similar allegations
as made on the petitioner. It is further submitted that the offence under Section
341, 294 and 506(B) of IPC shall not be made out because the essential
requirement for framing the charges are missing from the complaint of the
complainant itself. Counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance over the
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.03.11
judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed in the case of Maddi
15:46:37 IST
Sudarshan Kumar vs. The State of A.P. passed in Criminal Revision No.1525
of 2018 wherein High Court of Andhra Pradesh has quashed the charge framed
under the similar case. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
Learned counsel on behalf of the State has supported the impugned order of
charge and submitted that all the grounds raised by learned counsel for the
petitioner are beyond the scope of discharge of the petitioner and can be decided
after completion of trial. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from
this court at this stage.
I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as Govt. Advocate and
perused the record.
Hon'ble the apex court has considered the key points involved in the present
case in the following paras in the case of Hitesh Verma (surpa). The relevant
paragraphs are 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 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 œ1) 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 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 Âœany
place within public viewÂ. What is to be regarded as place in public viewÂ
had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported
as Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Ors.5. The
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
Court had drawn distinction between the expression œpublic place and
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.03.11
15:46:37 IST
Âœin 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
5 (2008) 8 SCC 435 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:
œ28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the
first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling
him a ÂœchamarÂ) 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 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 would be an
offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not
confuse the expression Âœplace within public view with the
expression public place. A place can be a private place 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 or private bodies.Â
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.
In the present case, main allegations against the applicant is under Section
3(1)(r)(s) of the Act of 1989. Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act of 1989, reads as
under:-
"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities-(1) whoever, not
being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within
public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe by caste name in any place within public view."
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.03.11
15:46:37 IST
To attract the said offence, the requisite ingredients are that the offender
should not be a member of Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally
insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe and it should be in any place within public view. In the light of the
said rival contentions and the language employed in the above said provision, it is
to be seen whether any prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for
commission of the offence for which he is charged. But in the case in hand, it is
clear that the petitioner has not abused and insulted on the public place or any
place within public view.
In the case in hand, if all the facts mentioned in the FIR/complaint are
accepted as it is in their entirety, the same cannot be establish commission of
offence under Sections 3(1) (s), 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(5-A) of the Act, 1989. Under
these circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that no prima facie case is made
out for commission of the offence under Section 3(1) (s), 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(5-A) of
the Act of 1989 and to this extent, the criminal revision is allowed partly.
Hence, the charges against the petitioner under Sections 3(1) (s), 3(1)(r) and
3(2)(5-A) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, 1989 framed vide the impugned dated 20.07.2021
in SST No.40/2021 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (P.A) Act, Shajapur are, are
hereby quashed.
The FIR in respect of other offences will be tried by the competent court in
accordance with the criminal case.
With the aforesaid, the revision petition stands disposed off.
Copy of this order be sent to the Sessions Judge, concerned, who is further
directed to assigned the trial to the competent court as well as to the trial court
concerned for information.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.03.11
15:46:37 IST
