Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 483
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Praveen Kumar @ Prashant - Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. - Respondents
CRL.A. 817 of 2018
Decided On : 28-04-2020
For the Appellant : Mr.Kapil Modi, AR
For the Respondent: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State. SI Laxman Kumar PS Fatehpur Beri. Mr.Shiv Chopra, Adv. with Ms.Richa Rebhan, Adv. for R-6. Mr.Ansh Singh Luthra, Adv.
The failure of the Special Judge to order registration of FIR and to apply judicial mind while issuing directions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and the failure to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations, to scrutinize the allegations, and to see the entire material in its true perspective, as well as the failure to see the credibility of the complaint, to examine the witnesses, and to establish whether caste remarks were made in public view, led to the Court's decision to allow the appeal and direct the SHO to register FIR on the complaint made by the appellant.
Headnote:
SC/ST Act - Registration of FIR - Section 14A of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 - Article 227 of Constitution of India - section 483 Cr.P.C. - Compliance with directions - Wilful disobedience - Erred by not ordering registration of FIR - Empowerment under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - Appreciation and adjudication on veracity of incriminating documentary evidence - Competency of representative - Contempt of Article 141 of the Constitution of India - Perverse finding in law - Principle of natural justice - Failure to comply with provisions of the Act - Failure to enforce the provisions of the Act - Failure to apply judicial mind - Failure to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations - Failure to scrutinize the allegations - Failure to see the entire material in its true perspective - Failure to see whether any case is made out or whether the allegations are frivolous or motivated - Failure to apply judicial mind while issuing directions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - Failure to see the credibility of the complaint - Failure to examine the witnesses - Failure to establish whether caste remarks were made in public view - Failure to meet the end of justice
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an International Horse Riding Champion, alleged that he was being victim of atrocities inflicted upon him by his competitors belonging to upper caste families. He sought registration of FIR under the SC & ST Act, which was denied by the Special Judge. The issues raised in the present appeal included compliance with directions, wilful disobedience, empowerment under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., appreciation and adjudication on veracity of incriminating documentary evidence, competency of representative, contempt of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, and failure to apply judicial mind.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Special Judge erred in not ordering registration of FIR and in not applying judicial mind while issuing directions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Court also found that the Special Judge failed to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations, to scrutinize the allegations, and to see the entire material in its true perspective. The Court further found that the Special Judge failed to see the credibility of the complaint, to examine the witnesses, and to establish whether caste remarks were made in public view.
Issues: Compliance with directions, wilful disobedience, empowerment under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., appreciation and adjudication on veracity of incriminating documentary evidence, competency of representative, contempt of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, and failure to apply judicial mind.
Ratio Decidendi: The Special Judge erred in not ordering registration of FIR and in not applying judicial mind while issuing directions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Special Judge also failed to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations, to scrutinize the allegations, and to see the entire material in its true perspective. The Special Judge further failed to see the credibility of the complaint, to examine the witnesses, and to establish whether caste remarks were made in public view.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the SHO of Police Station Fatehpur Beri to register FIR on the complaint made by the appellant and after investigation file report as per law. No coercive steps shall be taken against the alleged accused persons.
JUDGMENT :
Crl. M.A.43246/2019, 2656/2020, 2791/2020 & 2794/2020
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Applications are disposed of.
CRL.A. 817/2018 & Crl.M.A. 43245/2019, 2655/2020, 2790/2020 & 2793-94/2020
3. Present appeal is filed under section 14A of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 as amended by Act 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “SC/ST Act”) read with Article 227 of Constitution of India read with section 483 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned order dated 02.08.2018 passed by learned ASJ-02, Special Judge (South), Saket Court, New Delhi and for registration of FIR in accordance with law.
4. Case of appellant is that he belongs to schedule caste category aged 23 years. He is an International Horse Riding Champion (Equitation) and his goal is to represent India in Tokyo Olympic 2020 in Dressage. He has won over 30 Medals in the International Development League Competitions. However, over the last two years, he is being victim of atrocities inflicted upon him by his 3 competitors (including their parents) namely; Ameera Pasrich, Shivani & Amir Pasrich (parent of Ameera), Anush Aggarwala, Priti Aggarwala (mother of Anush) & Shikha Mundkur. The alleged accused persons belong to upper caste and rich families. They have intentionally & knowingly caste abused and intimidated the appellant within public view with intent to humiliate and shatter his self respect on several occasions at his trainer Kapil Modi”s farm. However, he kept silent out of fear.
5. The issues raised in present appeal are as under:
a. Whether The Ld. ASJ has complied with the directions as directed by this Court in disposing the appellant's application?
b. Whether the Ld. Special Judge has wilfully disobeyed the directions of this Court qua the disposal of the appellant's application?
c. Whether the Ld. ASJ has erred by not ordering registration of FIR after applying the test of Lalita Kumari and SC/ST Act under Rule 5 on the complaint dated 29.04.2018 of the appellant which prima facie discloses atrocities which are non bailable offences under SC & ST Act.
d. Whether the Ld. ASJ under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is empowered to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations and the bonafide of the complainant?
e. Whether the Ld. ASJ under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is empowered to appreciate and adjudicate on the veracity of the incriminating documentary evidence of the "Alliance" chats wherein the accused have themselves admitted to hatching a criminal conspiracy and acid attacking the appellant?
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have raised strong preliminary objection on appearing of Mr.Kapil Modi who representing the appellant. It was prayed that let this issue be decided first. Accordingly, issue is being decided interalia:
7. Regarding the issues raised by the respondents, the appellant being represented by Mr.Kapil Modi, in case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (supra), on 01.10.2019 Ld. Attorney General's submissions were recorded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India where he stated that the low conviction rate under the Act is a failure of the criminal justice system and not an abuse of law. The witnesses are pressurized in several manners and don't support Dalits, biased mindset continues, complainant hardly musters the courage. Further observed that SC/ST have been socially outcasts for centuries. Eye witnesses don't support them, provisions have been made for the protection of witnesses under the Act. The provisions of the Act are in essence, concomitants covering various facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
8. Accordingly, Hon’ble Apex Court in the Review Judgment of Kashinath Mahajan (supra) has held that there is no presumption of misuse of the SC/ST Act and neither can it be presumed that members of elite class don't misuse the law. SC/ST hardly muster the courage to lodge even an FIR much less a false and, in case, FIR is found to be false, it may be due to the faulty investigation. SC/ST cannot be t
