Uttarakhand High Court

Ramchandra vs State Of Uttarakhand on 29 August, 2022

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL


            Criminal Revision No. 477 of 2022

Ramchandra                                              ..........Revisionist

                                      Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                   ........ Respondent



Present :   Mr. Shailabh Pandey, Advocate for the revisionist.
            Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.



                                JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The revisionist proposes to challenge an order

dated 07.05.2022, passed in Misc. Case No.252 of 2021,

Ramchandra vs. Sanjay Kumar and others, passed by the

court of Special Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar (for

short, "the case"). By it, an application filed under Section

156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,

"the Code") has been rejected.

2. A Delay Condonation Application (IA) No.1 of

2022 has also been filed.

3. The grounds for delay is that the revisionist

due to jaundice, could not take the action on time and the

revision is delayed by 18 days.

4. Having considered the ground, this Court is of

the view that the delay in filing the revision may be

condoned and the matter may be heard on admission.

Accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed.

The delay in filing the revision is condoned.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

6. According to the application Section 156(3) of

the Code filed by the revisionist, he was working in a

company named S.I. Auto Pack Unit-2, SIDCUL, District

Udham Singh Nagar (for short, "the complaint"). On

27.09.2019, he was dismissed from the service along with

09 other persons, 05 were re-employed. When the

revisionist and 04 other persons approached the

respondent no.2, who is Manager in the company to

ascertain, as to why they have not been re-employed.

According to their application they were abused with

Caste coloured remarks and pressurized to withdraw their

complaint and not to pursue the matter in the labour

court. It also records that, in fact, on 17.12.2019, on a

public road, the private respondent abused and did maar

peet with the revisionist and used Caste coloured

remarks.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that the revisionist is a poor person, who belongs

to a Scheduled Castes category. Firstly, he was removed

from the service without having any cause and when he

wanted to know the reason, he was abused with the Caste

coloured remarks, not only this, it is argued that, in fact,

on 17.12.2019, he was assaulted and again abused on a

public place. Therefore, it is argued that prima facie

offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "the Act") is

made out and the court below committed an error in

declining for investigation.

8. It may be noted that the court below dismissed

the application on the ground that the alleged incident

did not take place at any public place.

9. Mere assertion in an application under Section

156(3) of the Code does not mandate a Magistrate to

direct for investigation. In the case of Priyanka Srivastava

and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,

(2015)6 SCC 287, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

discussed these aspect and observed that, "The duty cast

on the learned Magistrate, while exercising power

under Section 156(3) CrPC, cannot be marginalised."

10. In the case of Priyanka Srivastava (supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the observation of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court made in the case of Anil

Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa (2013) 10 SCC 705, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, "where

jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms

of Section 156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate

is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the

Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter

under Section 156(3) against a public servant without

a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the

Magistrate should be reflected in the order."

11. Order for investigation made under Section

156(3) of the Code, so as to unearth the truth and collect

the evidence. It is specific case of the revisionist that

since, he belongs to a particular Caste, he was abused

and insulted for that reason. In order to attract the

provisions of the Act, it is not always necessary that the

offence could have been committed at a public place,

what is required particularly, for application of the offence

under Sections 3(1)(r) is, "in any place within public

view". It is not public place, the place may be private, but

it should be in public view. That is one aspect of the

matter.

12. In the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of

Uttarakhand and another, (2020)10 SCC 710, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court discussed the requirement of application

under Sections 3(1)(r)of the Act and the object of in acting

the Act. In para 13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed

as hereunder:-

"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."

13. In the case of Hitesh Verma (supra), the parties

were disputing over a piece of land and in that dispute, it

was alleged that one of the parties was abused with Caste

coloured remarks. Finally, in para 18, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court observed as hereunder:-

"18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out."

14. In the instant case, it is the case of the

revisionist that he was removed from service. He had

approached firstly the Manager, respondent no.1, when

he was abused and in para 4 of the application, the

revisionist has stated that, in fact, he was also

pressurized to withdraw his complaint and not to proceed

the matter in the Labour Court. The dispute is not

because the applicant belongs to a particular Caste. It is

the revisionist, according to him, who visited, the

respondent no.1 to raise the issue with regard to his

removal from service.

15. Having considered, this Court is of the view