Gopal Lal Yadav S/O Sh. Bhanwar Lal ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 971 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3360/2020

1.     Gopal Lal Yadav S/o Sh. Bhanwar Lal Yadav, Aged About
       52 Years, R/o Guar Brahmanan, Tehsil Sanganer, District
       Jaipur
2.     Ram Lal Yadav S/o Bhanwar Lal Yadav, Aged About 48
       Years, R/o Guar Brahmanan, Tehsil Sanganer, District
       Jaipur
                                                         ----Accused/Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.     Sh. Vinod Kumar S/o Sh Babu Lal, R/o Guar Brahmanan,
       Sanganer Sadar, District Jaipur (South).
                                                ----Complainant/Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Goswami with Mr. Shubham Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, P.P.

For Complainant Mr. Amit Ratnawat

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

30/01/2021

This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of

CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR No.0253/2020 dated

14.05.2020 registered at Police Station Sanganer Sadar, District

Jaipur (South) under Section 143, 452, 341, 323 & 427 of IPC and

Sections 3(1)(n) & 3(1)(?k) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short

"the Act of 1989").

Learned counsel for the petitioners confined his submissions

to quashing the FIR qua the offences under the provisions of the

Act of 1989 only. Drawing attention of this Court towards the FIR

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-3360/2020]

wherein the allegations are that the members of the complainant

party were insulted and abused within the four walls of their

residence, learned counsel submitted that since the alleged

offence was not committed within "public view", the provisions of

the Act of 1989 are not attracted. He submitted that the FIR does

not reveal that any member of the public was present at the time

of alleged incident as well and hence, the FIR in question deserves

to be qushed qua the offences under the Act of 1989. Learned

counsel relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court of

India in case of Hitesh Verma versus The State of

Uttarakhand & Anr., (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 710, in

support of his submissions.

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the

complainant submitted that the act leading to offence under the

Act of 1989 was committed by the petitioners within the "public

view" as is apparent from the site plan and statements of

independent prosecution witnesses, members of public; namely,

S/shri Mukesh Prajapat, Girraj Sharma and Suresh Meena and

hence, the prayer made is not tenable. They relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Swaran

Singh & Ors. Versus State through Standing Counsel & Ors.,

(2008) 8 SCC 435, in support of their contentions. They,

therefore, prayed that the petition filed by the petitioners be

dismissed.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the

record.

In the FIR, the allegation is that the members of the

complainant party were abused and insulted by the accused-

petitioners entering into their house; but, it does not reveal that

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-3360/2020]

the incident did not occur within "public view". If the offence is

committed under Section 3(1)(r)(s) under the Act of 1989 within

the compound wall of the house of the complainant; but, in open

place therein, such as lawn or verandah or passage or any such

other place though, inside the compound wall; but, open to the

"public view", it cannot be said that no offence under the Act of

1989 is made out as the offence has taken place within the house

of the complainant. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India has, in case

of Swaran Singh (supra), 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."

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-3360/2020]

From a perusal of the site plan as well as the statements of

the prosecution witnesses; members of the public namely, S/shri

Mukesh Prajapat, Girraj Sharma and Suresh Meena, it is apparent

that the incident has occurred just inside the compound wall of the

house of the complainant abutting the public way in "public view".

In these circumstances, contention made by the learned

counsel for the petitioners cannot be countenanced.

Resultantly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed

being devoid of merit.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Manish/27

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)