Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2023
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
1
M.C.R.C. No.6416/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6416 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
DINESH S/O AMRATLAL CHAURASIYA, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE
1.
PATADIA DHAKAD, TEHSIL PACHORE, DIST. RAJGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
AMRATLAL S/O SOHANSINGH CHAURASIA, AGED 65
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE
2.
PATADIA DHAKAD, TEHSIL PACHORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
JAMUNA PRASAD S/O SOHANSINGH CHAURASIA,
AGED 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
3.
VILLAGE PATADIA DHAKAD, TEHSIL PACHORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI MANISH KUMAR VIJAYWARGIYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRU. P.S.
1.
PACHORE, DIST. RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
SOHAN SINGH S/O RATIRAM BALAI VILLAGE
2. PATADIA DHAKAD, TEHSIL PACHORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MS. AARTI KUMAWAT - PL AND SHRI DEEPAK SAKLE -
ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2)
Reserved on : 25.07.2023
Pronounced on : 25.08.2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the Court pronounced the following:
2
M.C.R.C. No.6416/2022
ORDER
This petition u/S 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the applicants for
quashing of FIR bearing Crime No.383/2020 registered at P/S Pachore,
Rajgarh for offence punishable u/S 294, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and S.3(1)
(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter as SC/ST Act) against the
applicants.
2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that, on 27.09.2021, at around 03:00
- 04:00 PM, the complainant Sohan Singh, who is member of SC
community alongwith his wife Smt. Kalabai was cutting soyabean crops.
At that time, the applicant No.1 Dinesh alongwith applicant No.2/his father
came by tractor for loading of Udad crops. Complainant and his wife
refused them to load the crop, then applicants No.1 and 2 Dinesh and
Amratlal abused them in filthy language and gave casteist abuses. The
applicant No.1 Dinesh gave blow with lathi to complainant on his head.
Smt. Kalabai and her brother-in-law Hazarilal tried to save the
complainant. Then applicant No.1 gave blow with lathi to Hazarilal on his
right hand. Applicants No.1 and 2 Dinesh and Amratlal also slapped Smt.
Kalabai. The accused persons had threatened the complainant that if they
stopped them from next time, they will kill them. On the same day, an FIR
was lodged against the applicants at P/S Pachore, Rajgarh. After
completion of investigation, charge-sheet (Annexure A-1) has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are
innocent and have not committed any offence. They have falsely been
implicated in the case. At the time of the incident, the complainant party
M.C.R.C. No.6416/2022
had assaulted applicants No.1 and 2 Dinesh and Amratlal on the same day.
Dinesh has lodged FIR bearing Crime No.382/2020 at P/S Pachore,
District Rajgarh against the complainant party u/S 294, 323, 506 r/w 34 of
IPC. Further, it has been submitted that complainant party were trying to
dispossess applicant No.1 and his family from land bearing Survey
No.89/1 and area of it is 0.449 hectare situated at Village Patadia Dhakad.
Therefore, the applicant No.1 filed a Civil Suit No.26-A/2019 (new Civil
Suit No.13-A/2020) (Annexure A-3) before Court of Civil Judge Class-1
Sarangpur, Rajgarh for declaration of title and permanent injunction
therefore, the complainant have falsely implicated the applicants in the
aforesaid civil suit. An order (Annexure A-4) of temporary injunction was
passed on 09.01.2021 in favour of applicant No.1. The applicant No.1 has
also filed a written complaint (Annexure A-5) on 18.06.2021 to SP,
Rajgarh in respect of trying to dispossess from the aforesaid land to the
applicant No.1.
4. Further, it has been argued that no prima facie case made out
against the applicants under of the Act, 1989. Allegations as alleged in the
FIR are baseless, therefore, impugned FIR and further proceeding pending
before the Court of Rajgarh in Special Case No.186/2020 is liable to be
quashed. The counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hitesh
Verma V State of Uttarakhand and Anr. [2021 1 SCC (Cri) 1].
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant/State as
well as the complainant/respondent No.2 have supported the alleged FIR
and prayed for rejection of the petition.
6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
M.C.R.C. No.6416/2022
records.
7. Main contention of the counsel for the applicants are that prima-
facie offence under the Act, 1989 is not made out against the applicants
therefore, it is pertinent to reproduce relevant sections of the Act, 1989:-
"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)(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 (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine;]"
8. In the case of Hitesh Verma (Supra), Supreme Court has held in
Para 13 and 17 as under:-
"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
M.C.R.C. No.6416/2022
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.
"17. In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh v. State of
Madhya Pradesh 2019 SCC Online SC 1104, this Court held that
in a case for applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact
that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be
enough to inflict enhanced punishment. This Court held that there
was nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the
appellant only because the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste.
The Court held as under:
"15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be
such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act.
The offence must have been committed against the person on the
ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the deceased
was belonging to "Khangar"-Scheduled Caste is not disputed.
There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only
on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled
Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused under
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable."
9. In the case of Rajeev Kourav v Baisahab And Ors. (CRA No.232
of 2020, judgment dated 11.02.2020), Supreme Court has opined in Para
6 as under:-
"6. It is no more res integra that exercise of power under
Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only
when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge sheet
constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged.
Interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to
prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to
M.C.R.C. No.6416/2022
secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence
produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into
by the Court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the
initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that
the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of
evidence while considering the petition filed under Section
482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from
the law laid down by this Court that if a prima facie case is
made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged
against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal
proceeding."
10. In the case of Harsh Gupta V State of M.P. [MCRC No.63657
of 2021 judgment dated 14.01.2022] has opined as under:-
"8. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of State of MP Vs.
Kunwar Singh by order dated 30.06.2021 passed in Cr.A.
No.709/2021 has held that a detailed and meticulous
appreciation of evidence at the stage of 482 of Cr.P.C. is not
permissible and should not be done. In the case of Kunwar
Singh (supra), the Supreme Court held as under:-
"8.........At this stage, the High Court ought not to be
scrutinizing the material in the manner in which the trial
court would do in the course of the criminal trial after
evidence is adduced. In doing so, the High Court has
exceeded the well-settled limits on the exercise of the
jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. A detailed enquiry
into the merits of the allegations was not warranted. The FIR
is not expected to be an encyclopedia..........."
11. In the instant case, in the FIR, it is clearly mentioned that the
applicants started to load Udad crops from the farm of complainant, then
the incident had occurred. It is also clear that the applicants had given
casteist abuses to the complainant. It is not revealed from the FIR that the
applicants were loading Udad crops from plot No.89/1. Therefore, as per
FIR and other evidence of the charge-sheet, it is clear that prima facie
M.C.R.C. No.6416/2022
offence is made out against the applicants. At this stage, it would not be
proper to embark upon the appreciation of evidence as the FIR prima facie
discloses commission of cognizable offence. As far as the submissions
made by learned counsel for the applicants is concerned regarding pending
civil suits for disputed land by the parties and lodging of cross FIR by the
applicant No.1 is matter of evidence. Therefore, the petition sans merits.
12. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE
Shruti
SHRU Digitally signed by SHRUTI JHA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH INDORE,
2.5.4.20=46283ba6a215e3d40573a7f0ced0632c8b
8e41b29405387437111f0f1c897b84,
TI JHA
postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=975D0201B09C38473541A4907EE0
732D1EA079B8EE35C9E2D19845AF26B0FBF4,
cn=SHRUTI JHA
Date: 2023.08.26 14:37:55 +05'30'
