Back
High Court Of Delhi
SMT.USHA CHOPRA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
W.P.(CRI.) 579 of 2003
Decided On : 10/26/2004
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Public View - Interpretation of 'public view' in Section 3(1)(x)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was summoned as an accused under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 based on a complaint filed by the respondent. The allegations against the petitioner did not disclose that the objectionable comments/remarks were made in 'public view'.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the presence of the co-accused only of the petitioner did not constitute 'public view' within the meaning of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. It referenced a previous judgment to interpret 'public view' as requiring the presence of persons from the public, however small in number, to attract the provisions of the Act. As the objectionable remarks/comments made by the petitioner were not in 'public view', the complaint and summoning were groundless, unwarranted, and an abuse of the process of law.
Issues: The issue revolved around the interpretation of 'public view' in Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted 'public view' as requiring the presence of persons from the public, however small in number, to attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. As the objectionable remarks/comments made by the petitioner were not in 'public view', the complaint and summoning were quashed.
Final Decision: The complaint as well as the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were quashed, and the petition was disposed of. Crl. M. No. 456/2003 was dismissed as anfractuous.
( 1 ) THE PETITIONER WAS SUMMONED AS AN ACCUSED UNDER section 3 (1) (X) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED tribes (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 (HEREINAFTER referred TO AS THE `act ONLY) ON THE BASIS OF A complaint FILED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2 AGAINST THE PETITIONER and SOME OTHERS.
( 2 ) THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER ARE contained IN PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE COMPLAINT. A READING OF paragraph 5 OF THE COMPLAINT AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT OF the COMPLAINANT AS CW-1 DOSE NOT DISCLOSE THAT THE petitioner MADE THE OBJECTIONABLE COMMENTS/remarks IN "public VIEW". THE PRESENCE OF THE CO-ACCUSED ONLY OF the PETITIONER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE "public VIEW" WITHIN the MEANING OF SECTION 3 (1) (X) OF THE ACT. IN A RECENT judgment OF THIS COURT IN DAYA BHATNAGAR and ORS. V. STATE; reported IN 109 (2004) DELHI LAW TIMES 915, THE WORDS "public VIEW" AS USED IN SECTION 3 (1) (X) OF THE ACT WERE interpreted AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE "public VIEW" MEANS that PERSONS FROM PUBLIC SHOULD BE PRESENT HOWSOEVER small IN NUMBER TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3 (1) (X) OF THE ACT.
( 3 ) IN THE CASE IN HAND, NEITHER THE ALLEGATIONS IN the COMPLAINT, NOR THE STATEMENT OF THE COMPLAINANT AS CW- 1 DISCLOSE THAT THE OBJECTIONABLE REMARKS/comments MADE by THE PETITIONER WERE IN "public VIEW" AND AS SUCH THE complaint UNDER SECTION 3 (1) (X) OF THE ACT AS WELL AS summoning WERE GROUNDLESS, UNWARRANTED AND AN ABUSE OF the PROCESS OF LAW.
( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, THE COMPLAINT AS WELL AS THE proceedings QUA THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 3 (1) (X) OF the SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF atrocities) ACT, 1989, ARE QUASHED.
( 5 ) THE PETITION STANDS DISPOSED OF. CRL. M. NO. 456/2003 DISMISSED AS ANFRACTUOUS.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
