Uttarakhand High Court

8 March vs State Of Uttarakhand Through Secretary on 18 March, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                       2025:UHC:1842



HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1983 of 2022
                         18 March, 2025
Joginder Singh Alias Nikku                              --Applicant

                               Versus
State Of Uttarakhand Through Secretary, Home Affairs
Dehradun and Another                                --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
      Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned D.A.G. with Mr. Vipul Painuli,
      learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/
      respondent No.1.
      Mr. Nalin Saun, learned counsel for respondent No.2/
      complainant.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Delay in filing the objection is condoned. Objection/counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record. Delay condonation application (IA/3/2024) made therefor, is allowed.

2. The prayer made in this application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to set-aside the summoning order dated 10.03.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No.03 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand vs. Joginder @ Nikku and Ors., u/s 352, 506 and 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, arising out of FIR No.15 of 2022 registered at P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun and the entire proceedings of the above case.

3. The facts in nutshell are that an FIR was lodged by respondent no.2 on 12.01.2022 stating therein that on 11.01.2022 he was selling his pig at a meat shop

2025:UHC:1842 situated at Mandi Chowk and alleged that some heated argument took place during sale purchase of pigs and the applicant-Joginder Singh @ Nikku and another person stated certain words related to his caste and also threatened him with his life. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, a case crime was registered in Police Station Vikas Nagar, Dehradun, in the aforesaid sections.

4. On the said FIR, after investigation, a charge- sheet dated 08.03.2022 was submitted by the Investigating Officer against the applicant and on the aforesaid charge-sheet, vide order dated 10.03.2022, cognizance was taken by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun under Section u/s 352, 506 and 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act and he was summoned to face the trial. Thus, feeling aggrieved, the present C482 application has been filed by the applicant.

5. 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. He also contends that the applicant was not name in the FIR while it was lodged against the two unknown/unidentified persons. He further contends that since the alleged incident occurred in the shop 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)(r) and 3(1)(s) 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.

2025:UHC:1842

6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel in its counter affidavit/objection submits that on the basis of oral as well as the documentary evidence and the statements of respondent No.2, Ranveer Rana (eye witness) and Prashant Taak (eye witness) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other material of evidence available on record, it is found that applicant was directly involved in the commission of crime, therefore, the court below has rightly summoned the applicant. He further submitted that the applicant is a habitual criminal offender and there are four criminal cases including the present one, against him.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits in its counter affidavit that the present applicant was named in the FIR along with one unknown person. He also submits that on the date of incident, the applicant along with his companions abused and assaulted the respondent No.2 in public place to harm the dignity of the deponent by using caste indicating words and also threatened him with dire consequences.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the entire material available on record.

9. 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

2025:UHC:1842 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 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.

10. From perusal of the FIR, it is nowhere disclosed that the incident occurred in a public place or in public view nor the FIR discloses the respondent no.2 belonged to scheduled caste or schedule tribe category or the applicant belonged to upper caste. Moreover, in the FIR, there is no mention of any witness of the incident.

2025:UHC:1842 Therefore, in view of this Court, the witnesses- Ranveer Rana and Prashant Taak seem to be procured one. Hence, no offence under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) 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 Sections 352, 506 and 504 IPC are made out against the applicant.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, present C482 application is allowed partly to the extent that proceedings with respect to Special Sessions Trial No.03 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand vs. Joginder @ Nikku and Ors. (FIR No.15 of 2022), under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, pending before the Court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, are hereby quashed qua the applicant. However, it is clarified that the proceedings with respect to Sections 352, 506 and 504 IPC in Special Sessions Trial No.03 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand vs. Joginder @ Nikku and Ors. (FIR No.15 of 2022), will be tried by the court below as per law.