Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shamsher Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 1 September, 2023
CRM-M-24258-2023 -1-
2023:PHHC:115711
243 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-24258-2023
Decided on : 01.09.2023
Shamsher Singh ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kanwer Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral)
Reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 in Court today is
taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC for
quashing of FIR No.396 dated 14.10.2022 under Section 506 IPC and
Section 3 of SC/ST Act registered at Police Station Parao, District Ambala
Cantt. and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. As per allegations levelled in the FIR (annexed as Annexure
P-1), there was a matrimonial dispute between the complainant (respondent
No.2) and her husband Krishan. On an application given by the
complainant to the DSP, Ambala Cantt, she and her husband were called to
SONIA BURA
2023.09.13 13:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2023:PHHC:115711
the police station to work out some settlement. When they appeared on
06.08.2022, the petitioner, who is a sarpanch and was also present along
with the estranged husband of the complainant, as his representative, took
her aside; he threatened the complainant and further, attempted to
pressurize her to agree to the settlement and hand over her children to her
husband. However, when the complainant refused to hand over the
children and effect any settlement, the petitioner indulged in
unparliamentary language besides making casteist remarks against her, as
she belonged to the SC/ST category.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is primarily seeking
quashing of the FIR in question on the ground that it is evidently a dispute
inter se between the complainant and her estranged husband. The petitioner
was present at the police station only as a representative of the husband of
the complainant and was merely playing the role of a mediator so as to
facilitate a resolution between the parties. Hence, there was no occasion
for him to have pressurized the complainant to effect a compromise with
her husband or even extend any threats of dire consequences much less
indulge in casteist utterances against her. Learned counsel further submits
that the complainant is admittedly a police official and thus, in a position
of greater authority than the petitioner. Hence, it is highly improbable that
the petitioner would have mustered the courage to indulge in casteist
utterances against the complainant. Learned counsel still further submits
SONIA BURA
2023.09.13 13:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2023:PHHC:115711
that even if the contents of the allegations levelled in the FIR are taken to
be true, though not conceded, the essential ingredients to attract the
mischief of an offence under Section 3 of SC/ST Act would not be made
out as it was the admitted case of the complainant-respondent No.2 herself
that the offence in question particularly the caste related comments had
been made to her by the petitioner, within the precincts of a police station,
when both the complainant and the petitioner were engaged in a private
discussion amongst themselves. Hence, it was apparent that the alleged
casteist remarks had not been uttered "within public view".
4. Learned counsel has thus, vehemently prayed that in the facts
and circumstances and also since the occurrence in question had not taken
place "within public view", the FIR in question qua the petitioner deserved
to be quashed as the complainant had an axe to grind against the petitioner,
who was present as a representative of her estranged husband at the police
station.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by counsel for the
complainant has opposed the submissions made by the counsel opposite
and submitted that all his submissions are disputed questions of fact. It has
been urged that the complainant had no previous enmity with the petitioner
and hence, there was no occasion to plant a false case upon him. It has
been further vehemently argued that since the petitioner, who is a
Sarpanch, was unable to pressurize the complainant to hand over her
SONIA BURA
2023.09.13 13:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2023:PHHC:115711
children to her estranged husband, the petitioner not only extended threats
to her but did not even hesitate to humiliate her by intentionally making
casteist remarks against her, as he was well aware that she belonged to the
SC/ST category. It has still further been contended that whether the
petitioner made the alleged casteist remarks or not, would be a matter of
trial and could not be gone into under Section 482 Cr.PC and all the pleas,
which are being raised before this Court, can be raised during trial.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
material on record.
7. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce
Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST Act, 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;"
8. Thus, what flows from a minute reading of the above provision
of law is that to attract the mischief of Section 3 of the Act, the victim
besides belonging to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe must be
intimidated or deliberately insulted so as to humiliate or degrade him or her
"within public view".
9. The question, which would arise before this Court is as to what
could be termed as "public view"? Public view would typically imply
something, which is not only accessible but also visible to the general
public without any hindrance or restriction.
SONIA BURA
2023.09.13 13:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2023:PHHC:115711
10. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that since the occurrence in question had taken place within the
four-walls of the police station, it was beyond public view and hence,
would not invite the penalty contemplated under Section 3 of the Act. The
question, which arises before this Court is as to whether the remarks made
at the police station, which is the place of occurrence and wherein alleged
casteist remarks were allegedly made towards the complainant, would fall
within the ambit of public view or not? It needs to be emphasized that any
place, the physical location of which is open and accessible to general
public, would fall within the ambit of a public place and thus, any
happening at such a place, would in turn be within public view. In the case
in hand as already observed, the occurrence in question took place in the
police station, and it cannot be disputed that the police station is a place
which is generally frequented by the general public for reporting crimes
and seeking assistance etc. of the police. A police station is thus, a
government facility, which is used by and for the public at large. "Public
place" and "public view" are related issues and are inter-connected.
Whatever happens in a police station, which is visited by the general public
at large, would naturally be visible to them.
11. The word "Public View" has been interpreted by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. In Swaran Singh and others vs.
State and others, 2008(8) SCC 435, which has been relied upon by the
SONIA BURA
2023.09.13 13:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2023:PHHC:115711
learned counsel for the petitioner also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
as under:
"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."
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh and others'
case(supra) has categorically clarified that a place can be either a private
SONIA BURA
2023.09.13 13:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2023:PHHC:115711
place or a public place, and be within public view. This Court has no
hesitation in observing that the expression "any place within public view"
would extend beyond private settings and would include private
place/spaces as well as an enclosed space frequented by the public also.
Still further, the alleged casteist remarks were allegedly uttered in the
police station wherein apart from the complainant and the accused, other
persons including some police officials would have definitely been present.
13. Furthermore, this Court, at this stage, cannot be expected to
delve into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled. A
perusal of the allegations levelled in the FIR in question prima faice
reveals the commission of the alleged offences against the petitioner.
12. As a sequel to the above and in the light of the language used
in the police station, any act done with the deliberate intent to humiliate or
to intimidate a person belonging to a SC/ST category within a public place
or within the vicinity of public place, would invite the mischief of Section
3 of the Act. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
13. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove
shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
01.09.2023 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
sonia JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
SONIA BURA
2023.09.13 13:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
