Uttarakhand High Court
Rajendra vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 14 March, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.186 of 2024
Rajendra ...........Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......... Respondents
Mr. D.N. Sharma and Ms. Manju Bahuguna, Advocates for the
revisionist.
Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, A.G.A. with Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder
for the State of Uttarakhand.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Instant revision is preferred against the
judgment and order dated 11.01.2024, passed in Misc.
Case No.372 of 2023, Rajendra Vs. Ram Swaroop and
others, by the court of Special Sessions Judge, District
Udham Singh Nagar (for short, "case"). By it, an
application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code") has
been rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The revisionist moved an application
against the private respondents for removal of their
illegal occupation on a land specially ear marked for the
persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. Due to this reason, the application records that
the private respondents were inimical towards the
revisionist and on 26.05.2023 at 09:00 the revisionist
was abused with Caste coloured remarks, as to how dare
he complained against the private respondents for
vacating the Government land. The application records
that the revisionist was threatened to life and he was
also threatened that he may be falsely implicated in
some cases. The application is quite in detail. The
Special Judge, Udham Singh Nagar called a report from
Police Station. The report of police station states that no
case was lodged on the application of the revisionist.
According to the police report, the parties were in
dispute with regard to a property and no such incident
took place. After considering the entire factual aspects,
the special court rejected the application under Section
156(3) of the Code.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the
revisionist would submit that perusal of the application
under Section 156(3) of the Code filed by the revisionist
reveals that an offence under the provisions of The
Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("the Act") is made out. He would
submit that the Caste coloured remarks were used and
the revisionist was abused by the private respondents.
He would refer to Section 3(r) of the Act, which reads as
follows:-
"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities
....................................................................................
(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."
5. It may be noted that in the application
under Section 156(3) of the Code, filed by the revisionist,
it is also recorded that based on a report given by the
private respondents police has lodged the proceedings
under Sections 107/116 of the Code against the wife of
the revisionist and his brother.
6. In every case whenever Caste coloured
words are used, it does not attract the provisions of the
Act. In the case of Khuman Singh vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2020)18 SCC 763, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
discussed these aspects and in para 14 observed as
follows:-
"14. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be
such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of
the Act. The offence must have been committed against
the person on the ground that such person is a member of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present
case, the fact that the deceased was belonging to
"Khangar"-- Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no
evidence to show that the offence was committed only on
the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled
Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-
accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not
sustainable."
7. The law on this point has further been
discussed by the Hob'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and another,
(2020)10 SCC 710. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
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, offence under the Act is
not made out. In para 18 of the judgment, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"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."
8. In the instant case, what is alleged is that the
revisionist had moved an application for evicting the
private respondents from some Government land. There
was a dispute in between the parties with regard to the
property.
9. In the instant case, even if the allegations
as levelled that in the application under Section 156(3)
of the Code, are accepted in its entirety, it does not make
out any offence under the provisions of the Act. The
words are not used just to humiliate the revisionist for
the reason he belongs to a particular community. Parties
are in dispute with regard to the ownership, possession
of a land. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
special court, though on different grounds has rightly
dismissed the application. There is no reason to make
any interference in this revision. Accordingly, the
revision deserves to be dismissed at the stage of
admission itself.
10. The revision is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
14.03.2024
Sanjay
