Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, JJ.
Puran Chand Gupta & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State NCT Of Delhi & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(Crl) 2453 of 2021
Decided On : 08-03-2022
SC/ST Act - Quashing of FIR - Section 320 - Section 482 of Cr.P.C - The court analyzed the mandate of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C and the powers exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It also discussed the legislative intent underlying the SC/ST Act and the principles enunciated in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a contractor, was subjected to caste-based derogatory remarks and threats by the petitioners over a dispute regarding a payment of a paltry sum of money. The petitioners sought to quash the FIR on the basis of a compromise, but the court found that the offence was committed solely on the basis of the victim's caste and was not of a predominantly civil nature.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition as it found no abuse of process of law or travesty of justice that warranted the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the court. It held that the compromise did not indicate the settlement of any civil dispute and the possibility of the complainant being coerced into the compromise could not be ruled out.
Issues: The court deliberated on whether the FIR and the criminal proceedings under the SC/ST Act could be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties. It also considered the legislative intent underlying the SC/ST Act and the principles enunciated in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the offence in the case was not of a predominantly civil nature and was committed solely on the basis of the victim's caste. It held that the rigors of the SC/ST Act, being a special statute enacted with a specific noble legislative intent, must be given effect in its letter and spirit and cannot be diluted by quashing the FIR on the basis of compromise.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as it was devoid of merits. The court made it clear that the observations made in the judgment would have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
JUDGMENT
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. - The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") on behalf of the petitioners praying for quashing of FIR bearing no. 729/2021 registered on 1st September 2021 at Police Station Dabri, Delhi under sections 3(1)(r) and (3)(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "SC/ST Act").
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. As per the FIR, the prosecution story is as follows:
(a) The Complainant named Vipin Singh, S/O Phool Singh, R/O House no, D-69B, Gali No. 15, Bharat Vihar, Raja Puri, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi carries out the work of painting and tiling in homes. He received one order for tiling, in pursuance thereof he asked Anil Kumar (Petitioner No. 3) to engage his employee Jagan in the work of tiling for a total amount of Rs. 23,000/-.
(b) Upon the completion of the said work, the owner of the house expressed his dissatisfaction as the same was not properly done. Out of the total amount of Rs. 23,000/-, the Complainant gave Rs. 15,000/- to Jagan and assured him that he will receive the balance amount of Rs. 8,000/- within next two days. At this point, Jagan started arguing with the Complainant.
(c) Jagan subsequently complained about the same to Anil Kumar (Petitioner No. 3), following which on 13th September 2021 at about 6.00 pm, Anil Kumar along with Manish Sharma (Petitioner No. 2) and four other persons came, abused, and threatened the Complainant regarding the due amount.
(d) On 1st August 2021 at about 8.00 pm, the Complainant received a call from Puran Chand Gupta (Petitioner No. 1) who abused the complainant, thereafter Anil Kumar (Petitioner No. 3), Manish Sharma (Petitioner No. 2) and Puran Chand Gupta (Petitioner No. 1) passed caste-based derogatory remarks "ChamarChuhar", abused, and threatened the complainant.
(e) The Complainant made a complaint at the Police Station, Dabri, New Delhi in this regard, however, no FIR was registered. Later, the Complainant/Respondent no.2made a written complaint to DCP, Dwarka on the basis of which, the FIR bearing no. 729/2021 was registered on 1st September 2021 at Police Station Dabri, New Delhi under sections 3(1)(r) and (3)(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
SUBMISSIONS
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners and Complainant/Respondent No. 2 are known to each other and are neighbours. It is submitted that due to some misunderstanding the quarrel took place between them, however, there was no intention to hurt the Respondent No. 2.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that in the present case, the Respondent No. 2 has amicably settled all his grievances/disputes and differences with the Petitioners vide com prom ise-cum-settlement deed dated 23rd November 2021 out of his free will and without any coercion.
5. While buttressing his arguments, learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court passed in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1393 of 2011) dated 25th October 2021, which has been dealt with subsequently.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant/Respondent No. 2 stated that he has no objection whatsoever to the settlement deed, that the complainant has willfully entered into the said compromise and hence, the present FIR be quashed on the basis of the said compromise.
7. Per Contra, Ms. Nandita Rao, learned ASC appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the instant writ petition and submitted that:
(a) the SC/ST Act is a special legislation passed to check and deter crimes against scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The legislative intent to implement a specialized law has been to curb the incidents of indignities, humiliation and harassment meted out to the members of these communities.
(b) the present FIR is a classic case of mischief sough
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
