Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 5th OF MARCH, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 43346 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RAVI SHUKLA S/O SHRI
VISHWANATH SHUKLA, AGED
ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS 6, RAJASWA COLONY,
MADHAV NAGAR, UJJAIN, DISTRICT
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIVEK KRISHNA TANKHA- SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI GARURAV
KUMAR VERMA- ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE
STATION A.J.K., UJJAIN
DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. PRABHULAL S/O BISHANLAL
TATWAL, AGED ABOUT 69
YEARS, RET. PERSON, UJJAIN
DIST. UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY BY SHRI VISHAL SANOTHIYA - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESOPNDENT
NO.1/STATE.
BY SHRI RISHIRAJ TRIVEDI- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JYOTI
CHOURASIA
Signing time: 20-03-2024
14:34:00
2
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is
finally heard.
2. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by
petitioner/accused for quashing the FIR No.10/2017 registered at Police
Station A.J.K., Ujjain, District Ujjain against him for offences punishable
under Section 323, 294, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(a), 3(1)(s) and
3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the charge sheet filed before the Court concerned.
3. As per the prosecution, on 23.08.2017 a complaint was lodged by the
complainant/respondent No.2 to the effect that he has retired in January,
2017 as an Engineer from Municipal Corporation, Ujjain. On 23.08.2017 he
had come to Freeganj and was standing in front of Billu boot House. At
about 3:45 p.m. the petitioner came to him and abused him on the basis of
his caste stating that due to him he has suffered great financial loss when he
was in service he had black listed him due to which he did not get work and
is not getting his remaining amount also. When the complainant asked him
as to why he is saying so he abused him again which was also on the basis
of his Caste. He thereafter beat the complainant with hands and fists and
when he tried to save himself he was bitten by teeth. Thereafter he was
saved by his friend and passersby. The petitioner then told him that today he
has been saved but if he ever sees him again he will kill him. The petitioner
has abused him on the basis of his caste which he and other persons hearing
the same felt bad.
4. On the basis of report lodged by the complainant FIR was
registered and investigation was commenced during course of which
statements of witnesses were recorded and the relevant documents were
collected. After completion of the investigation charge sheet has been filed
by the Police before the Court concerned.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire
allegations as leveled against the petitioner even if taken to be true at their
face value do not amount to commission of any offence by him. The FIR
lodged against the petitioner is a result of mala fide action on part of the
complainant. He has lodged the FIR only as a counter blast since the
petitioner has already lodged an FIR against him forming subject matter of
Crime No.536/2017 for offence punishable under Section 323, 294, 506,
326 of the IPC on 23.08.2017. The complainant as per his caste certificate
belongs to 'Berwa' community which is mentioned in Article 341 of the
Constitution of India and the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950
in Part IX Serial No.14. As per the FIR the complainant has stated that the
petitioner abused him by his caste 'Berwa Chamre'. Both are different
community. The petitioner abused the complainant by calling him Chamre
but he belongs to Berwa caste which shows his malafide intention. The FIR
has been lodged on account of personal enmity. The offences which have
been registered against the petitioner as per the SC/ST Act are not made
out. It is hence submitted that the FIR deserves to be quashed. Reliance has
been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Patan Jamal Vali vs.
The State of Andhra Pradesh 2021(16) SCC 225, Hitesh Verma vs. State
of Uttarakhand, AIR 2020 SC 5584, Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.1393 of 2011 decided on 25.10.2021,
Shailesh Kumar vs. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC Online Kar 4,
Surendra Kumar Mishra vs. State of Orissa and Another CRLMC No.
2628 of 2013 decided on 19.12.2022 and Pappu Singh vs. State of U.P.
2001 SCC Online Allahabad 659.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and
complainant have submitted that there is sufficient material available on
record to proceed against the petitioner and it cannot be said that no offence
is made out. On the basis of the utterances made by the petitioner the
offence under the SC/ST Act is clearly made out since the petitioner
belongs to Berwa community. The FIR was lodged in the year 2017
whereas this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed in
September, 2013 i.e. after a period of six years. The charge has already
been framed against the petitioner and the evidence has commenced during
which statement of the complainant has been recorded. Thus at this stage it
would not be proper to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.
7. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record.
8. It is the contention of the petitioner that the provisions of the
Act, 1989 are not applicable in the present case since the petitioner has
allegedly called the complainant 'Chamre' which is not a caste mentioned
in the Scheduled of Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. In this
regard if the FIR and the statements of the complainant are seen it is
apparent that he has alleged that the petitioner had called him 'Berwa
Chamre'. 'Chamre' would obviously be calling the complainant 'Chamar'
and Chamre is only a mode of expression. However the petitioner has also
allegedly called him 'Berwa'. Both 'Chamar' and 'Berwa' are at Serial
No.14 Part IX of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950. The
petitioner has hence apparently abused the complainant on the basis of his
caste. The contention that the petitioner has not uttered any word attracting
the provisions of the Act, 1989, hence cannot be accepted.
9. It is further contended by the petitioner that the FIR has been
lodged by the complainant only as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by him
on 23.08.2017 itself which is prior in point of time to lodging of the FIR by
the complainant. That, in my opinion cannot be a ground to quash the FIR
itself. Though it may be defence of the petitioner that the instant FIR is a
counter blast to the FIR lodged by him but that would be a matter to be
considered by the trial Court itself at the appropriate stage of proceedings
and merely for lodging of FIR by both the parties on the very same day
either of the FIR cannot be said to be a counter blast and motivated.
10. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that in view of the alleged utterances made by the petitioner the
offence under Section 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s) and Section 3 (2)(va) of the Act,
1989 are not made out. In that regard it would be apt to reproduce the
aforesaid provisions which are as under:
"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities - (1) whoever, not being a member
of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, -
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Castes or a
Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Castes or a
Scheduled Tribe by Castes name in any place within
public view;
(2) whoever, not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, -
-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------
-------------
(v-a) commits any offence specified in the Schedule,
against a person or property, knowing that such person
is a member of a Scheduled Castes 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;
11. Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is as regards an offence where a
person not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe
intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of the
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within a public view. In
the present matter, petitioner is alleged to have insulted and intimidated the
complainant intentionally. The same was done by him in public view. The
ingredients of these provisions are very well available in the facts of the
present case.
12. As per Section 3(1)(s) the offence is abusing any member of
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within
public view. The petitioner, as per the allegation of the complainant has
abused him by caste name in a public place and within public view. The
ingredients of these provisions are also very much available in the present
case.
13. The offence under Section 3(2)(va) is when a person not being
a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe commits any offence
specified in the Scheduled against a person knowing him to be a member of
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. The Schedule to the Act, 1989
includes Section 323 and 506 of the IPC which offence has allegedly been
committed by the petitioner as per the allegation of the complainant. He has
caused injury to the complainant by assaulting him and biting him with
teeth in his right hand thumb which has resulted in injury to him and has
threatened him of killing him. Thus, the essential ingredients for attracting
Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989 are also very much available.
14. The judgment in the case of Patan Jamal Vali(supra) relied
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has laid down that the offence
should be one which must have been committed against the person on the
ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe. In the present case, the complainant has specifically stated in the FIR
as well as in his statements that the petitioner had assaulted and injured him
and had threatened him with life only on the basis of him being a member
of a Scheduled Caste. It is not a case where the complaint belongs to a
Scheduled Caste and has been assaulted and threatened by the petitioner
which both facts are not inter related. On the contrary both of them are very
much inter related and the complaint is alleged to have been assaulted by
the petitioner and threatened with life only on the ground of him belonging
to such a Caste. This judgment is hence of no avail to the petitioner.
15. In the matter of Ramawatar (supra) relied upon by learned
counsel for the petitioner the Apex Court was considering an issue as
regards a compromise having been entered into by the complainant and the
accused arising out of an offence punishable under the Act, 1989. The
interpretation of any of the provisions for which the petitioner has been
charged was not a consideration therein. In Hitesh Verma (supra) also the
Supreme Court held on facts that there was no intention to humiliate the
accused for the reason that the complainant belongs to the Scheduled
Castes. In the present case there is specific allegation by the complainant of
the petitioner abusing him and threatening him on the basis of his caste.
This judgment also does not help any of the petitioner. Likewise is the
factual position with the judgment in the case of Surendra Kumar Mishra
(supra).
16. Another fact which needs mention is that the FIR was lodged
against the petitioner in August, 2017 whereas this petition has been filed
by him in November, 2023 i.e. after a period of more than six years. While
it is true that there is no fixed period of limitation for invoking extra
ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., but if
an accused feels or has reason to believe that the FIR registered against him
is malafide or that he has not committed any offence whatsoever to be
proceeded with, he ought to in the natural course invoke the jurisdiction or
this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with at least reasonable
promptitude. A period of six years cannot qualify to be in that category.
17. While it is also true that an FIR can be quashed despite charges
having been framed by the trial Court on the basis of the charge sheet filed
by the prosecution, but in all fairness and propriety, the accused should also
challenge the framing of charge in the petition where he prays for
quashment of the FIR so that the entire factual position is before the Court.
In the present case, admittedly charges have been framed against the
petitioner and the trial has commenced. He has however not challenged the
charges in this petition. He has not even filed a copy of the charges framed
by the trial Court. Admittedly the proceedings in the case have already
commenced and the statement of the complainant has also been recorded
before the trial Court and he has since been cross examined also by the
petitioner. In his statement before the Court complainant has categorically
affirmed the allegations as were leveled by him in the FIR. Thus, also for
the reason that the trial has substantially progressed, interference at this
stage invoking power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would be wholly
unwarranted.
18. Thus in view of the aforesaid, I do not find any ground to
invoke the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the present matter for
quashing the FIR. The petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
