The power to interfere with the order of framing charges should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases, and a prima facie opinion pointing to the commission of an offense is necessary.

ORDER :

1. Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 13.12.2019 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge (Atrocities) and also order dated 20.12.2019 directing for framing of charge against applicant, as also order dated 20.12.2019 framing charge under Section 153 (A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth 'IPC') and Section 3 (1) (u) of the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth 'the Act of 1989') against the applicant.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this criminal revision are that complainant lodged written complaint in concerned police station alleging that applicant has posted a message in his Facebook account making casteist remarks that if selection had been made on qualification then bull wit ¼cSy cqf)½ like complainant would not have been selected, which hurt the feelings of not only complainant but also the entire tribal community. Based on said written complaint, police registered FIR against applicant for the offence punishable under Section 295A of IPC. After completion of investigation, police submitted final report under Section 173 CrPC for the offence under Section 295A 153 (A) & (B) of IPC and Section 3 (1) (u) of the Act of 1989. Vide order dated 13.12.2019, the Court below ordered for framing of charges under Section 153A of IPC and Section 3 (1) (u) of the Act of 1989 and on 20.12.2019 charges were accordingly framed, the same were read over and explained to applicant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the Court below without there being any cogent and clinching material in charge sheet, has framed the charges against applicant, which is per se illegal. There is no prima facie ingredients of commission of offence under Section 3 (1) (u) of the Act of 1989 because there is no mention of intention to insult the person who belongs to a reserved category. Facebook message, which is basis for registering FIR against applicant, only shows opinion of incompetency of a person and it is not used to humiliate any person belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in a public place. Facebook message cannot be treated to be a message in the public platform. He next contended that ingredients of Section 153A of IPC is not appearing in the entire charge sheet as there is no mention of promoting enmity between different group on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. and doing acts as prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. In support of his contention with regard to framing of charge under Section 3 (1) (u) of the Act of 1989, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra & anr, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing submissions of learned counsel for applicant, would submit that the material available in the charge sheet prima facie established commission of offence under Section 3 (1) (u) of the Act of 1989 and Section 153A of IPC against the applicant. In support of his contention, he read out the contents of FIR as also the message posted in Facebook, which is forming part of charge sheet.

5. Learned counsel for the Complainant would submit that Facebook is the most popular social medial platform in the country and with intention to malign status of complainant, applicant had posted message in his Facebook account relating to complainant casting doubt on his intelligence and working capacity and thereby attempted to tarnish the image and reputation of complainant as also his community in the eyes of public. He submits that messages posted on Facebook account, the same can be called 'public place' because all the friends of Facebook account of applicant will have access to those messages. Decision in case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for applicant is on different facts and therefore, no benefit of the same