Back
2009 Supreme(P&H) 1331
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Harbans Lal, J.
Premdeep Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondents
Criminal Misc. No. M-23642 of 2009 (O&M).
Decided On : 05 August, 2009
For the Petitioner:Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General Punjab.
The judgment establishes the importance of essential ingredients and public view in determining the validity of an offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Indian Penal Code, Section 341/506, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an FIR registered against him and his brother under Section 341/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioner claimed innocence and alleged political vendetta behind the registration of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ingredients for making out a case under the provisions of the Act were missing, and the FIR seemed improbable. It noted that the alleged occurrence took place inside the petitioner's house, and the provisions of Section 3 of the Act were not satisfied.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the FIR under Section 3 of the Act, the absence of essential ingredients, and the alleged political vendetta behind the registration of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for an offence under Section 3 of the Act to be made out, the insult or intimidation must occur in any place within public view, and the accused must have the knowledge of the victim's Scheduled Caste status. It also cited precedents where FIRs were quashed due to the absence of caste mentions and occurrence within private spaces.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR related to Section 3 of the Act but maintained it for Sections 341/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Harbans Lal, J. - This petition has been moved by Premdeep Singh under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 115 dated 27.07.2007 under Section 341/506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity, the Act) registered in Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran along with all consequential proceedings arising out of said FIR.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the above-mentioned FIR has been registered against the petitioner and his brother Birinder Singh. However, during investigation, he was found to be innocent and challan was not presented against him. From the contents of the FIR, no case is made out against the petitioner as the ingredients for making out a case under the provisions of the Act are missing. This case has been registered with political vendetta against the petitioner. The complainant in his statement has stated that the co-accused Premdeep Singh has said to him that you have voted for Virsa Singh of the Akali Dal and now asking to put stamps from him. The petitioner party is the supporter of the Congress Party and immediately after the Akali Party formed the Government in Punjab and the Akali MLA won from the constituency of the village of the petitioner, this case has been registered against the petitioner as he has not voted to Akali candidate in his village. It is settled law that the provisions of the Act would only be invoked, if the alleged occurrence/incident took place in any place within public view. Secondly, it must have been mentioned that the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community and the accused belongs to the non- Scheduled Caste community. Thirdly, it should have been mentioned that the accused persons have the knowledge that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community. In the present case, the above-mentioned ingredients are missing. This case has been registered by the police promptly and without conducting a reasonable and fair inquiry to know the truth regarding this occurrence. This shows that the police was under pressure and, therefore, the petitioner and his brothers were named. That otherwise also no injury has been received by the complainant, even though, there are allegations that he was confined in the house of the petitioner and had been tied with a rope. The story seems to be improbable in the normal course of nature and in these premises, this FIR alongwith consequential proceedings arising out of the same, may be quashed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with a good deal of force that on reading the allegations in the FIR carefully, it emerges out that the alleged occurrence took place inside the house of the petitioner, whereas the offence under Section 3 of the Act shall be deemed to have been made out, if the non-Scheduled Caste insults or intimidates member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to humiliate in any place within public view and thus, prima-facie no offence under the said Section is made out. The learned State Counsel could not controvert this contention in a successful manner. Section 3 of the Act insofar as is relevant for the decision of this case reads as under :-
(3) Punishments for Offences of atrocities. -- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, -
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine."
5. It has been manifested in plain words in the above language that firstly the person whosoever is alleged to have committed the offence under the provisions of this Act should
