High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
R.K. BAG, J.
Ruma Raha Dutta & Others
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Another
CRR No. 2486 of 2011 With CRAN No. 1152 of 2013 (Appellate Side)
Decided On : 16-05-2014
CRIMINAL REVISION - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Offences under Sections 3(1)(x) and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 341/509 of the Indian Penal Code - Whether made out - Held, no offence made out under Section 3(1)(x) and under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 341/509 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners from the written complaint treated as F.I.R. and from the evidence collected by the investigating agency in course of investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were the Headmistress, Secretary, President, and member of the Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Balika Vidyalaya, were accused of assaulting, abusing, and threatening the Opposite Party No.2, an Assistant Teacher of the school, on the grounds of her caste. The Opposite Party No.2 filed a complaint under Sections 341/323/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(x) and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioners were not members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and that the incident did not take place within public view, as required under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court also found that the petitioners were not public servants, as required under Section 4 of the Act. The Court further found that the investigation of the case was not carried out by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, as required under Section 9 of the Act and Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. The Court also found that the contents of the written complaint treated as F.I.R. did not disclose any offence punishable under Sections 341/509 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: 1. Whether any offence is made out under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989? 2. Whether any offence is made out under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989? 3. Whether any offence is made out under Sections 341/323/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The offence must be committed within public view to attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The petitioners are not public servants, as required under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The investigation of the case was not carried out by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, as required under Section 9 of the Act and Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995.
Final Decision: The criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No.807 of 2007 arising out of Dankuni Police Station Case No.151 of 2007 is quashed so far as the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 341/509 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned. However, the above criminal proceeding will continue against the petitioners so far as the offences under Sections 323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned.
R.K. Bag, J.
1. This criminal revision is preferred by the petitioners for quashing the proceeding being G. R. Case No.807 of 2007 arising out of Dankuni Police Station Case No.151 of 2007 dated 30.09.2007 under Sections 341/323/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(x) and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 pending before the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore, Hooghly.
2. The Opposite Party No.2 is the Assistant Teacher of Raghunathpur Balika Vidyalaya and her husband Shri Gora Chand Das is a Senior Labour Welfare Inspector of the Eastern Railway. The Petitioner No.1 is the Headmistress of Raghunathpur Balika Vidyalaya. The Petitioner No.2 is the Secretary, the Petitioner No.3 is the President and the Petitioner No.4 is the member of the Managing Committee of the said Raghunathpur Balika Vidyalaya. On 30.09.2007 the Opposite Party No.2 filed one petition of complaint before the Officer-in-charge of Dankuni Police Station which was treated as Dankuni Police Station Case No.151 of 2007 dated 30.09.2007. The allegations made by the Opposite Party No.2 being the defacto complainant in the written complaint treated as F.I.R. are as follows:
“On 29.09.2007 at 11.20 a.m. within the school premises Smt. Ruma Raha (Dutta), Shri Kamal Krishna Ghosh, Bhola Hazra, Johar Jyoti etc., the managing committee members of the school have assaulted mentally with uses filthy languages with loudly voice and tortured in a scientific manner. They have tried to hackle me and force me to leave the school for their detrimental attitude against S. C. community and reflected their way of various torturing since 2003. A no. of filthy languages with loudly voice was used to force me to leave the job and life threatening me being continued. Under the circumstances would request your attention to take necessary action in accordance with Article 359 of the constitution of Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 against them.”
It is relevant to point out that the persons whose names are disclosed by the Opposite Party No.2 in the F.I.R. are the petitioners of the instant criminal revision.
3. The police took up the investigation of the above criminal case. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tapas Singha took up the investigation of the case, but subsequently one Manik Lal Das, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Hooghly took up the investigation and submitted charge sheet against the petitioners under Sections 341/323/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the said criminal proceeding.
4. The proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the Case of “Union of India V. Prakash P. Hinduja” reported in 2003 SCC (Cri.)1314 for quashing the criminal proceedings by invoking inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is as follows: i) where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused, ii) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused, and iii) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the act concerned to the institution and continuance of the proceedings.” It is also laid down by the Apex Court in the case of “Rupan Deol Bajaj V. Kanwar Pal Singh gill” reported in 1995 SCC (Cri.) 1059 that the criminal proceedings may be quashed by exercise of inherent power of the High Court where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.