Rakesh Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 5223 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rakesh Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 March, 2025

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia

                          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5866


                                                                           1              M.Cr.C. No. 21469 of 2024


                               IN THE           HIGH COURT           OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                        AT G WA L I O R
                                                              BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

                                                    ON THE 7th OF MARCH, 2025

                                               MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21469 of 2024
                                                   RAKESH SHARMA
                                                       Versus
                                      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS


                          Appearance:
                                Shri Harshit Sharma, Advocate for applicant.
                                Dr. Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.
                                Shri Yash Sharma and Shri Vijay Singh Jadon, Advocate for respondent
                          No.2.


                                                               ORDER

This application, under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., has been filed seeking quashment of FIR in Crime No.280/2024 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Morena for offences under sections 294, 506 of IPC and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short "the Act") .

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that Narendra Jatav lodged a report alleging that he is a member of Scheduled Caste. On 7/5/2024 applicant had abused him from his mobile no. 8871696913 by using filthy language and also called him as Chamra, Hadda etc. It was also alleged that applicant called him by his caste name and threatened that he would be killed. In case if he comes to

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5866

Village, then he would be beaten after tying and he would not allow him to perform any work in the Village.

3. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that even if the entire allegations are accepted, then it is clear that no offence under sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2) (va) of the Act is made out, as well as, no offence under section 294, IPC is made out. So far as offence under section 506, IPC is concerned, it is a non cognizable offence.

4. Per contra, application is vehemently opposed by counsel for the respondents.

5. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Whether an offence under section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act is made out or not ?

6. The complainant in his statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. has stated that originally he is resident of Village Silaytha and about 20 years back, he has constructed his house in Morena and since then he is residing with his family in Morena. However, he is frequently visiting the Village because his wife is Sarpanch of Village Silaytha. It is stated that he supports his wife to perform the duties of Sarpanch. Villages Samlekapura, Bhalekapura and Janvedkapura fall within the Panchayat. On 7/5/2024, Lok Sabha elections were scheduled and, accordingly, election party had visited the Village on 6/5/2024. Being Sarpnach of Village, he had gone to ensure the convenience of election party. While he was coming back from the School where election party was staying, he met with Shyamsunder alias Shyamu who enquired that from where he is coming. When the complainant informed that he is coming back after verifying the convenience of election party, then Shyamu scolded him that it is not his duty. When it was replied by complainant that he is Sarpanch of the Village and also challenged that Shyamsunder may also contest the elections of Sarpanch, then on this issue, hot

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5866

talks took place between them and thereafter they went back to their home. On the next day i.e. on 7/5/2024, in the evening, while complainant was at his house situated in Morena and was all alone in his drawing room and was taking rest on his bed, then he received a mobile call at 6.09 PM from the applicant. On an enquiry when complainant informed him that Narendra Jatav was on this side, then applicant started abusing him and also humiliated and insulted him by calling him by his caste name and also abused filthily in the name of his mother and daughter and said that in case if complainant visits the Village, then he will be tied with a tree and would be killed and no insect of the Village would come to rescue him. He also challenged that in case if complainant comes to village, then he would not allow him to work as Sarpanch and he would be shot. The conversation took place for 1 minute and 48 seconds. Thereafter, due to night, he did not come to police station. Accordingly, on 13/5/2024, a written complaint was made, on the basis of which FIR was lodged.

7. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that since the abusive language was not spoken within public view, then no offence under section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act is made out.

8. Heard, learned counsel for the applicant and respondents.

8. Before considering the aforesaid submission, the statement of complainant which was recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. is required to be considered in detail. In this statement, it is specifically stated that on 7/5/2024, while he was in his house and was all alone in his drawing room and was taking rest on his bed, then he received a call. In the drawing room of complainant, nobody else was present and complainant was all alone. Therefore, it cannot be said that complainant was insulted or humiliated within public view.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2020)10 SCC 710 has held as under:-

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5866

"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 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 "(1) 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 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 2 is a member of Scheduled Caste.

14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] . The Court had drawn distinction between the expression "public place" and "in 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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5866

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 (sic) [Ed. : This sentence appears to be contrary to what is stated below in the extract from Swaran Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the application of this principle in para 15, below:"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."] . The Court held as under : (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28) "28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar") 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 "place 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."

(emphasis in original)

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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5866

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 [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] , 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."

10. Thus, it is clear that when the words were uttered by applicant on telephone and complainant was all alone in his drawing room and was taking rest on his bed, then it cannot be said that complainant was insulted or humiliated within public view. Therefore, prima facie no offence under section 3(1)(r), (s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act is made out.

11. So far as the offence under section 294, IPC is concerned, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out in absence of essential ingredients of the offence, i.e. annoyance to others, in or near any public place. The drawing room of complainant cannot be said to be a public place. Furthermore, it is nowhere alleged by the complainant that the words uttered by applicant were to the annoyance of others.

12. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that no offence under section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act is made out. Similarly, no offence under section 294, IPC is made out.

13. So far as the question as to whether charge-sheet can be filed for offence under section 506, IPC is concerned, it is a non cognizable offence. However, S.2(d) of Cr.P.C. which defines a complaint, reads as under:-

"(d) "complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.

Explanation.--A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5866

offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant

Thus, it is clear that if a report is made by Police Officer disclosing commission of a non cognizable offence, then it shall be deemed to be a complaint and the Police Officer by whom such report is made, shall be deemed to be the complainant.

14. Accordingly, merely because offences under sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act, as well as, S.294, IPC have been quashed, the FIR cannot be quashed on the ground that the offence under section 506, IPC is a non cognizable offence. Once the charge-sheet is filed, then the charge-sheet can be treated as complaint and the Investigating Officer shall be treated as complainant.

15. For the reasons mentioned above, this application is partially allowed. The FIR in Crime No. 280 of 2024 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Morena in respect of offences under sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act is, hereby, quashed. However, the charge-sheet shall be treated as complaint for the offence under section 506 of IPC.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge (and)