Back
1999 Supreme(Pat) 885
PATNA HIGH COURT
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.
Chandrama Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1379 of 1999 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 08, 1999
The Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 does not have the power to take cognizance of offenses, and the general procedure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to cases under the Act.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF FIR - SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 - SECTION 3(X) - INTENT TO HUMILIATE - PUBLIC VIEW - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought to quash an order taking cognizance of offenses under Sections 147, 148, 323, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act). The complaint alleged that the petitioners assaulted the complainant, a member of a Scheduled Caste, and used derogatory language against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Special Court under the Act does not have the power to take cognizance of offenses, and that the general procedure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) applies to cases under the Act. The court also held that the allegations in the complaint did not make out an offense under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and that the provisions of Section 3(x) of the Act were not attracted in the facts of the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the Special Court under the Act has the power to take cognizance of offenses? 2. Whether the allegations in the complaint make out an offense under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code? 3. Whether the provisions of Section 3(x) of the Act are attracted in the facts of the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Special Court under the Act does not have the power to take cognizance of offenses, as the Act does not confer such power on the Special Court. The court relied on previous judgments of the same court which held that the general procedure laid down under the Code applies to cases under the Act. 2. The court held that the allegations in the complaint did not make out an offense under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, as it was not appropriate to examine this submission at the stage of cognizance. 3. The court held that the provisions of Section 3(x) of the Act were not attracted in the facts of the case, as the alleged insult or intimidation was not with the intent to humiliate the complainant, and did not occur in a place within public view.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order only to the extent that cognizance had been taken under Section 3(x) of the Act. The rest of the order taking cognizance was upheld.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the order dated 25.9.1998 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, whereby he has taken cognizance for offences under sections 147, 148, 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on a complaint petition filed by opposite party no.2 against the petitioners.
3. The gist of the allegations in the complaint petition is that on 27.8.1998 at about 9.00 A.M. the alleged occurrence took place in village Chakiyaz (Desari) in the district of Vaishali. The complainant has claimed that he is servant of petitioner, Chandrama Singh, since about one year at a monthly salary of Rs. 500/- besides food and clothes. It has further been alleged in the complaint that the complainant on the date and time of occurrence demanded from accused Chandrama Singh, his six months salary amounting to Rs.3,000/- which was due, for repairing his house and also wanted leave for going to his home, upon this allegedly Chandrama Singh said that he had no money at that time and he was not prepared to grant leave to the complainant. The complainant then offered to quit the work and asked for his entire dues and upon this all other accused persons who are all family members of accused Chandrama Singh abused the complainant using the term Harijan and upon orders of Chandrama Singh, he was assaulted by all accused persons. Chandrama Singh is alleged to have used a Hasua causing injury below the neck and other accused persons used Lathi on back and other parts of complainants body. During the assault, the villagers are said to have arrived and saved the complainant, who somehow came to Hajipur and got himself treated by a private doctor with the help of one Sanjay Singh of neighbouring village. It was further alleged that complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste and the accused persons do not belong to Scheduled Caste. It was further alleged that local police was under the influence of the accused persons. Hence, the complaint petition was filed on 28.8.1998 along with injury report given by a private doctor.
4. It appears that the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and thereafter in an inquiry under section 202 of the Code, three witnesses were examined including Dr.Ashok Kumar Singh, who opined that injury no.1, incised wound 3"x1/4" muscle deep just below neck left side, was dangerous to life caused by a weapon like Hasua and rest injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance and were simple in nature. After inquiry under section 202 of the Code, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order took cognizance as aforesaid and directed for issuing summons against the accused persons for appearance and commitment.
5. On behalf of the petitioners the impugned order was challenged on three grounds. Firstly that in a case under the Act the power of trial by virtue of section 14 of the Act is vested in a Special Court which is a specified court of session for each district and hence even the power to take cognizance or to hold inquiry etc. shall vest in the Special Court notified under section 14 of the Act. Secondly, it was submitted that in the facts of the case, the allegations did not make out any offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and thirdly it was argued in some detail that in fact no offence is made out under section 3(x) of the Act and hence, the case should not be committed to Special Court under the Act for trial.
6. So far as the first contention is concerned, it is an admitted position that at least in two Division Bench judgments-1992(2) PLJR 738 (Jhagru Mahto V/s. State of Bihar & another) and 1997(1) PLJR 334 (Haresh Kumar Singh V/s. Union of India), this Court had held that since the
