Interpretation of terms and the need for careful usage, especially by influential individuals, to avoid misinterpretation and potential legal consequences.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR no.0115 dated 14.02.2021, registered at Police Station Hansi, District Hansi, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 153 A and 153B of the IPC, read with Section 3 (1) (u) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention and Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Mr. Bali, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that, firstly, the person in reference to whom the allegedly casteist remarks are stated to have been made (though denied), does not belong to a Scheduled Caste and hence, they could not be said to be casteist remarks.

3. He next submits that the remarks were made in the context of the person concerned (Yuzvendra Chahal) "having made" his father dance at a marriage ceremony (as contended), and therefore the remarks were in the context of somebody being in an inebriated condition, with him thereafter submitting that bhang is also an intoxicant and the word bhangi' had been used by the petitioner in that context.

4. He points to paragraph 5 of the petition, in which it is stated that term used, cbhangi', was not intended to hurt the sentiments of any community or any person, but was a friendly comment made by the petitioner to his friends and colleagues who are not part of the "respected dalit community".

5. Mr. Bali next points to the provision in respect of which the petitioner is stated to have committed an offence, i.e. Section 3 (1) (u) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which reads as follows:-

"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.

(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,

XXX XXX XXX

(u) by word either written or spoken or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes;

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."

6. Mr. Bali submits that even the context of the word used in the "Instagram chat" by the petitioner with his friend, would not impute any kind of ill-will, enmity or hatred, or any attempt to promote such feelings, it having been used in the context of one persons' father dancing in a marriage ceremony, with that person not belonging to any scheduled caste.

7. Mr. Bali also submits that the complainant in the FIR in question, is a person who has made many complaints against many celebrities and important people etc. and that he would be filing the details of such complaints in due course, he having received that information only today.

8. Learned senior counsel also refers to paragraph 6 of the petition, wherein it has been stated that a person called Raj at had approached the petitioner through the petitioners' manager, in the month of June, 2020,to find 'means to close the issue', in which context he points to Annexure P-4, which is stated to be a photograph of the said person, whom learned senior counsel submits, as per the instructions of the petitioner, is a person known to the complainant.

9. Notice of motion, with Mr. Surender Singh, learned AAG, Haryana, accepting notice on behalf of the respondent State at the asking of the court and with Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Advocate, appearing for the complainant and also accepting notice on his behalf, copies of the petition already having been received by both the counsel.

10. Learned State counsel submits that as per his instructions, the matter is still under investigation.

11. Mr. Sheoran, learned counsel for the complainant, submits that, firstly, as regards the person referred to as Raj at in paragraph 6 of the petition, the complainant makes a categorical statement that he does not know him and so the question of that person ringing up the petitioner to demand money on behalf of the complainant, would not arise in the first