Uttarakhand High Court
4 March vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 4 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:1497
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 720 of 2018
04 March, 2025
Yogeshpal --Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & another --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Mohd. Alauddin, learned counsel for respondent no.2 (appeared through V.C.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
The prayer made in this application filed under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to set-aside the charge-sheet
dated 11.04.2017, summoning order dated 29.01.2018
as well as the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial
No.04 of 2018, State vs. Yogeshpal (Case Crime No.43 of
2017), under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(d) of
SC/ST Act, pending before the court of learned Special
Judge/Sessions Judge, SC/ST Act, Haridwar.
2. The facts in nutshell are that an FIR was
lodged by respondent no.2 against the applicant on
16.02.2017 stating therein that on 08.02.2017 applicant-
Yogeshpal along with three boys forcefully entered into
the house of complainant to put a flag of a political party,
but when his wife tried to restrain them, they abused her
with caste coloured remarks and also assaulted her and
on the basis of the aforesaid FIR, a case crime was
registered in Police Station Ranipur, Haridwar in the
aforesaid sections.
3. On the said FIR, after investigation, a charge-
sheet dated 11.04.2017 was submitted by the
Investigating Officer against the applicant and on the
2025:UHC:1497
aforesaid charge-sheet vide order dated 29.01.2018,
cognizance was taken by the learned Sessions Judge,
Haridwar under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(d) of
SC/ST Act and he was summoned to face the trial.
Feeling aggrieved, the present C482 application has been
filed by the applicant.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the
applicant that the FIR does not disclose that respondent
no.2 to be of scheduled caste category and the applicant
is of upper caste. Moreover, there is delay of eight days in
lodging the FIR by respondent no.2. He further contends
that since the alleged incident occurred in the house of
respondent no.2, which clearly cannot be a public place
and it did not happen in public view, therefore, no
offence under Section 3(1)(d) of the SC/ST Act is made
out against the applicant. In order to buttress his
argument, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Karuppudayar vs. State Rep. By
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy
& others; reported in 2025 SSC Online SC 215.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that the court below after
appreciating the evidence available on record has rightly
summoned the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant has
committed a serious offence. He also submits the offence
under Section 504 IPC is prima facie made out against
the applicant as he intentionally insulted the informant's
wife and also threatened her thereby committing the
offence of assault.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
and carefully gone through the entire material available
on record.
2025:UHC:1497
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 10 & 11 of
Karuppudayar (Supra) has held that:-
10. The term "any place within public view" initially came up
for consideration before this Court in the case of Swaran
Singh v. State through Standing Counsel. This Court in the
case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand referred
to Swaran Singh (supra) and reiterated the legal position as
under:
"14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation
in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place
in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in
the judgment reported as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran
Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]. The
Court had drawn distinction between the expression "public place"
and "in any place within public view". It was held that if an 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, then the lawn would certainly be a
place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made
inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not
merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it
is not in the public view (sic) [Ed. : This sentence appears to be
contrary to what is stated below in the extract from Swaran
Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the application of
this principle in para 15, below:"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."]. The Court held as under : (SCC pp. 443-44,
para 28)
"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
2025:UHC:1497
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."
(emphasis in original)"
11. It could thus be seen that, to be a place 'within public
view', the place should be open where the members of the
public can witness or hear the utterance made by the accused
to the victim. If the alleged offence takes place within the four
corners of the wall where members of the public are not
present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a
place within public view.
8. From perusal of the FIR, it is quite clear that
the complainant has specifically stated that the incident
occurred inside his house which as per the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karuppudayar
(Supra) cannot be said to be a 'public place' or 'any place
within public view'. Therefore, in view of this Court, no
offence under Section 3(1)(d) of SC/ST Act is prima facie
made out against the applicant. But, after perusing the
FIR and material available on record, this Court is of the
view that prima facie ingredients of Section 504 IPC are
made out against the applicant.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, present C482
application is allowed partly to the extent that
proceedings with respect to Special Sessions Trial No.04
of 2018, State vs. Yogeshpal (Case Crime No.43 of 2017),
under Section 3(1)(d) of SC/ST Act, pending before the
court of learned Special Judge/Sessions Judge, SC/ST
2025:UHC:1497
Act, Haridwar are hereby quashed qua the applicant.
However, it is clarified that the proceedings with respect
to Section 504 IPC in Special Sessions Trial No.04 of
2018, State vs. Yogeshpal (Case Crime No.43 of 2017)
will be tried by the court below as per law.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court
below for compliance.
11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
04.03.2025
AK
