Back
2012(3) Crimes 424 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
S.C. Agarwal, J.
Suhail Fasih —Revisionist
versus
State of U.P. and Anr. —Opp. Parties
Criminal Revision No. 3439 of 2011
Decided on 11.11.2011
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Revisionist:Mr. I.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate.
For the Opp. Parties: AGA.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, continuance of such proceedings will be nothing, but an abuse of process of law and such proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 227—Petition seeking discharge of offences under Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST Act an under Section 354 IPC—Petitioner, District Information Officer was alleged to have called abuses by caste name to complainant who was working as maid servant and she had demanded her wages and petitioner molested her by touching her breast—Petition for discharge dismissed by trial Court—Revision—As regards allegations of molestation—Statement of complainant was belied by Statement of her husband—Revisionist was a married person and place of incident was his house—Revisionist had given a complaint against daughter of complainant alleging theft by her, allegations of molestation appeared to be a counter blast to wreak vengeance—Abuses in caste were alleged to have been made inside the room on first floor of the house and place could not be said to be within public views—Where criminal proceedings was manifestly attended with mala fide continuance of proceedings would be abuse of law—Petitioner was entitled to discharge. (Paras 11 to 16, 20 23 and 26)
JUDGMENT
S. C. Agarwal, J.— This revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against order dated 5.8.2011 passed by Special Judge, S.C/S.T. Act, Farrukhabad in Special Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2006 (State v. Suhail Fasih) arising out of crime No. 578 of 2004 under Section 354 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), P. S. Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad, whereby the application 8B under Section 227 Cr.P.C claiming discharge has been rejected.
2. On 6.7.2004 at 6:30 p.m., a written report was submitted by the complainant Smt. Munni Devi (opposite party No. 2) wife of Ram Chandra at P.S. Kotwali Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad against the revisionist stating therein that she used to work as a part time maid servant at the house of accused Suhail Fasih, District Informatics Officer situated at Officers Colony, Fatehgarh on monthly wages of Rs.325 per month. She was not paid any remuneration for the past five months. On 11.6.2004 at 7:00 a.m., when the complainant demanded her wages from the accused, he abused her by calling her ‘Sali Dhobin’ and forcibly took her inside the room and molested her by touching her breast.
The complainant raised alarm. Many persons including her husband reached there.
3. After investigation, the police submitted final report. A protest petition was filed by the complainant. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh vide order dated 14.12.2005 took cognizance under Section 190 (1)(b) Cr.P.C and summoned the revisionist to face trial under Section 354 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The summoning order was challenged by the revisionist by means of an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C No. 2617 of 2006, which was dismissed by order dated 8.3.2006. The said order was challenged before the Apex Court by means of Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No: 1838 of 2006, whereupon the following order was passed by the Apex Court on 1.5.2006:
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
After some argument, learned counsel is permitted to withdraw this petition. We may, however, observe that if at the time of framing of charges, a petition for discharge is filed, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudice by any observations made either by the High Court or by the trial court in the impugned orders. The special leave petition is, thus, disposed of.”
4. In pursuance of the order passed by the Apex Court, a detailed application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C was filed by the revisionist before Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, which has been rejected by the impugned order. Hence, this revision.
5. Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State at length and perused the material available on record.
6. Notice sent to the complainant through C.J.M., Farrukhabad has been personally served on the complainant, but she has chosen not to put in appearance nor any counter affidavit was filed on her behalf.
7. It is submitted by Sri Chaturvedi that at the relevant time, the revisionist was posted as District Informatics Officer at Fatehgarh and was allotted Official Residence No. D33, Officers Colony, Fatehgarh. The said residence was on the first floor of the building. The complainant used to work at the house of the accused as a part time maid servant. On 15.5.2004, Km. Anju, daughter of the complainant, committed theft of gold bangle and diamond ring of the wife of the accused, in respect of which, a written report was given to Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad on 2.6.2004. When the F.I.R. was not registered, a complaint was made to District Magistrate, Farrukhabad and on his orders, the F.I.R. was lodged on 22.6.2004 against Km. Anju. Sri Chaturvedi contends that as a counter blast, this case has been concocted by the complainant against the accused, who is a Class I Officer of the Central Government and was residing with his wife
