Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Madho on 27 February, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C482 No. 1599 of 2017
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Sachin, Advocate, on behalf of Mr.
Mukul Dangi, Advocate, for the applicant.
Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
In the instant C482 Application, the present
applicant has given challenge to the summoning
order dated 7th November, 2017, as it has been
passed by the Court of Special Sessions Judge,
Almora, District Almora, in Special Sessions Trial
No.30 of 2017, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Madho
Singh Bisht, and a prayer has also been made to set
aside the chargesheet No. 63/2017 dated 22nd
October, 2017.
As per the allegations levelled in the FIR,
which was registered as an FIR No. 52 dated 18th
August, 2017, it is one limb of argument of the
learned counsel for the applicant, that the FIR
which was got registered by the respondent, it
happens to be a counterblast to the earlier FIR
which was registered by the applicant at 15:22, as
the FIR, on which, cognizance had been taken,
happens to be an FIR No. 52 of 2017 registered at
20:01.
But, if the FIR as registered by the
respondent, is taken into consideration with regard
to the alleged involvement of the present applicant
in commission of the offence under Sections 323,
504, 506 and 447 of the IPC to be read with
Sections 3 (2) (va) / 3 (1) (g) /3 (1) (5) /3 (1) (r) of
S.C. & S.T. Act, the basic ingredients required for
registering of an FIR for alleged commission of
offence under Section 3 of the Act, on which,
chargesheet, being Chargesheet No. 63/2017 dated
22nd October, 2017, has been submitted by the
Investigating Officer, on which, cognizance has
been taken by the Court of Special Sessions Judge,
Almora, on 7th November, 2017, has not been
satisfied.
The solitary ground, which has been argued,
though without there being a pleading to that effect
in the C482 Application, that the entire proceedings
as drawn as against the present applicant will be
vitiated, for the reasons being, that neither in the
FIR as registered on 18th August, 2017, being FIR
No. 52 /2017 or in the chargesheet, which has been
submitted against the present applicant, being
Chargesheet No. 63/2017 dated 22nd October, 2017,
nowhere it finds reference, that the complainant /
respondent No.2, herein, had made any averments
or allegations as against the present applicant for
his involvement in the commission of the offence
under Section 3 of the S.C. & S.T. Act, by making a
specific assertion to the effect, that the applicant
belongs to a superior class in order to bring him
within the ambit of Section 3 of the S.C. & S.T.
Act.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment as
reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710, Hitesh Verma Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another, has observed
that no FIR or criminal proceedings could be drawn
against the applicant or an accused person, until and
unless, the FIR, which has been registered by the
oppressed class makes a specific assertion, that the
person, who was indulged in the commission of
offence belongs to the superior class.
The very principle extracted in the above
judgment is based upon the ration laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment as reported in
(2008) 12 SCC 531, Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh and others. Paragraph 6 of the
judgment of Gorige Pentaiah (Supra) is extracted
hereunder:-
"In the instant case, the allegation of respondent
No.3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.5.2004, the
appellant abused them with the name of their caste.
According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the
Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused-
appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No. 3) was intentionally
insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to
humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire
complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-
appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated
with intent to humiliate respondent No. 3 in a place within
public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are
missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint
to continue and to compel the appellant to face the
rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified
leading to abuse of process of law."
In fact, none of the documents, which has
been placed on record by the applicant or by the
respondent No.2, herein, do anywhere disclose the
fact, that the present applicant belongs to the
superior class or not.
In that eventuality, in the absence of there
being any specific pleadings to the said effect, the
entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 30
of 2017, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Madho Singh
Bisht, would be vitiated in view of the provisions as
contained under Section 3 of the S.C. & S.T. Act.
On this limited count itself, since the
proceedings itself lacks the basic ingredients for
initiation of the proceedings of criminal trial for the
offence under Secti on 3 of the S.C. & S.T. Act, the
entire proceedings as drawn against the present
applicant would be contrary to the provisions
contained under the Act of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Hence, the C482 Application would stand
allowed, and as a consequence thereto, the
proceedings of the Special Sessions Trial No.30 of
2017, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Madho Singh Bisht,
pending consideration before the Court of Special
Sessions Judge, Almora, would hereby stand
quashed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 27.02.2023
Shiv
