Back
MANOJ KUMAR GARGIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
Manjindra Singh S/o Shri Nakshatra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1225 of 2020
Decided on : 19-04-2023
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 279, 323, 341 & 34 - SC/ST Act - Sections 3(1)(R)(S) & 3(2)(va) – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 482 - Offence of Rash driving or riding in public – Voluntarily causing hurt – Common intention – Charged - Petition for quashing FIR - Complainant along was going to attend a marriage function by a car bearing No - Said car was being driven by complainant in capacity of driver - At about 12:10 PM, when they reached near Bus Stand, due to damaged roads, complainant suddenly applied brake of car and consequent thereto, a car coming from behind, which was being driven by petitioner No.1, hit car of complainant - Upon which, petitioner No.1 came out of his car with a stick and broke mirror of complainant’s car.
Finding of Court :
It is clear that in order to make out offences under Section 3(1)(R)(S) of the SC/ST Act following ingredients must subsist: (i) act attributed should amount to intentional insult or intimidation; (ii) it should run with intention to humiliate; (iii) it should be directed against a member of SC or ST; and (iv) act attributed should have taken place in public view - In present case act attributed to petitioner does not amount to intentional insult or intimidation because incident in the case in hand is nothing but only a free fight in aggression and both parties have received injuries in alleged incident - Said incident occurred at a public place but not in a public view as according to independent witnesses, at time of incident, no abusive language was used by petitioners against complainant - Court is of opinion that offences under Sections 3(1)(R)(S) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act are not proved against present petitioners - Impugned FIR in respect of offences under Sections 3(1)(R)(S) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act is here by quashed against the petitioners.
Result : Present misc. petition is partly allowed accordingly. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
ORDER :
1. Defects pointed out by Office are hereby overruled.
2. The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR No.39/2020, registered at Police Station Kesrisinghpur, District Sriganganagar for offences under Sections 279, 323, 341 & 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(R)(S) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.
3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No.2 lodged a report to the effect that on 28.02.2020, the complainant along with Shyam Lal Agarwal was going to attend a marriage function in Srikaranpur by a car bearing No.RJ-13-CC-1080. The said car was being driven by the complainant in the capacity of driver. At about 12:10 PM, when they reached near Gulabevala Bus Stand, due to damaged roads, the complainant suddenly applied the brake of the car and consequent thereto, a car coming from behind, which was being driven by the petitioner No.1, hit the car of the complainant. Upon which, the petitioner No.1 came out of his car with a stick and broke the mirror of the complainant’s car. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 telephonically called the petitioner No.2 and they started beating with the complainant and also abused him using caste oriented language. When Shyam Lal Agarwal and Babu Ram Maheshwari came to save the complainant, then the petitioners also gave beating to them.
4. On the said report, the Police registered the FIR for the aforesaid offences and started investigation.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned FIR, the present misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners.
6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that from the perusal of the FIR as well as other documents, it appears that the FIR has been lodged with malafide intention just with a view to put undue pressure upon the petitioner. This is merely a case of an accident and no offences as alleged are made out against the present petitioners. It is also contended that the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act, 2015 are missing in the present case i.e. (1) intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe, and (2) in any place within public view.
7. Counsel further submits that from the contention of FIR as well as statements of witnesses, no offence under Section 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act is also made out against the present petitioners because the petitioner had no knowledge regarding the caste of the complainant. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the FIR filed against the petitioners may be quashed.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that according to perusal of the FIR as well as other documents, a prima facie case is made out against present petitioners. In the investigation, the Investigating Officer also found the offences proved against the present petitioners. So, the FIR may not be quashed.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR as well as material available on record.
10. From the perusal of the FIR and material on record, it is revealed that due to an accident, altercation occurred between the petitioners and complainant and the petitioners caused injuries to the complainant which is evident from the injury reports of the complainant party. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. So far as the offences under Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, in the first instance, it is relevant to refer to the provision contained in Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act, 2015 which reads as under:
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in
Point of Law : Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe-(va) commits any offence specified in Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member....
The court emphasized the need to prevent false and frivolous cases under the SC/ST Act and highlighted the importance of evidence to support charges under the Act.
The court emphasized that an FIR under the SC/ST Act requires the humiliation of a SC/ST member to occur in public view; allegations must substantiate a cognizable offense.
The court emphasized the importance of evidence and the specific elements required to establish offenses under the SC/ST (PO) Act.
Knowledge of the victim's caste identity is essential for establishing an offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, and such knowledge can be presumed if the accused had personal knowledge of ....
The Court emphasized the importance of evidence and the absence of a motive for the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
The main legal principle established is that allowing a purely civil dispute to be treated as a criminal offence under the SC/ST Act would constitute an abuse of process of law.
FIR under SC/ST Act quashed absent caste-based insult, humiliation intent linked to caste, or cognizable offence ingredients; prior similar vexatious complaints indicate abuse of process for revenge.
Charges under SC/ST Act require intentional, public misconduct; private disputes don’t meet criteria for offences.
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
