The court clarified the right of hearing for the accused at different stages of the legal process and interpreted the applicability of the SC & ST Act in the context of intentional insult and humiliation within public view.

JUDGMENT :

Suresh Kumar Kait, J.

Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek direction thereby setting aside Order dated 29.09.2016 passed by the learned ASJ-02/FTC, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 81/2016, in FIR No.318/2015 dated 26.10.2015, registered in Inder Puri Police Station, New Delhi and all the consequential/incidental proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioners on the basis of complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 herein. In the said FIR, it is alleged by the Respondent No.2 that on 25.10.2015 at about 6 P.M., when the Respondent No.2 went to meet his brother Mohit, who used to run a Rehri/Stall in the locality, petitioner No.3 was abusing his brother and thereafter, a fight took place between three of them. Meanwhile, Petitioners No. l and 2 also reached at the spot and a scuffle took place. Thereafter, the Petitioner No.3 took the Respondent No.2 on one side whereas the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 caught hold of the Respondent No.2 and Petitioner No.3 inflicted injuries to the Respondent No.2 with a sharp edge weapon and the Respondent No.2 sustained injuries on his left cheek and shoulder. Thereafter, respondent no.2 called at 100 number and the uncle of the Respondent No.2 took him to RML Hospital. At the time of leaving, the Petitioners threatened the Respondent No.2 for his life and also uttered caste related remarks/comments against the Respondent No.2. Thereafter, on the basis of the complaint of respondent no.2, initially FIR was registered under sections 323/341/506/34 of the IPC and the Petitioners were released on anticipatory bail by the police as all the offences are bailable in nature. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 filed the complaint case u/s 156 (3) of Cr.P.C against the Petitioners and the said Complaint case was dismissed by the Ld. M.M. vide its order dated 06.04.2016.

3. Being aggrieved, the Respondent No.2 preferred Revision Petition vide Criminal Revision No.81/2016 and the said revision petition was disposed of vide order dated 29.09.2016 passed by Ld. ASJ-02/FTC, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi with the direction that the investigation for the offences under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC & ST Act must be conducted in the said case by the rank of the officer of ACP as per Rule 7(1) of SC & ST Rules, 1995.

4. On the basis of the said order, the Police further investigated and added the offence u/s 307 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of the SC & ST Act in the said FIR after recording statement of Respondent No.2 u/s 161 of Cr.P.C.

5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said statement is a case of complete departure from the FIR. Thereafter, the petitioners no.3 and 4 were arrested on 13.09.2017 and were released on regular Bail by the court of Ld. ASJ, vide its order dated 17.10.2017.

6. He further submits that petitioner nos.3 & 4 were arrested in the said case after almost two years after registration of the FIR and no police remand was sought by the police of the said petitioners and nothing incriminating has been recovered at the instance of the petitioners. Thereafter, the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 moved the anticipatory bail application and the same has been dismissed by the Court of Ld. ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi vide its order dated 09.11.2017.

7. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 approached this court and vide order dated 13.12.2017, anticipatory bail was granted to them.

8. The present petition has been filed on the ground that order dated 29.09.2016 passed by the learned ASJ is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the Petitioners were never given the opportunity of being heard by the said Revisional Court. The law is very well settled in this regard that no order to the prejudice of an accused or any other person can be passed by the Revisional Court, unless the Petitioners have been given an opportunity of being heard, however, none of the petitioners h