JUDGMENT :

Amol Rattan Singh, J.

Vide this petition, the petitioner seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash FIR no.0115, dated 14.02.2021, registered at Police Station Hansi, District Hansi, wherein it is alleged that offences punishable under Sections 153-A and 153-B of the IPC, as also Section 3 (1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), have been committed. [Subsequently, as submitted before this court, an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act has also been added in the FIR.]

The grounds spelt out in the petition for quashing the FIR, can be essentially summed up as follows:-

(i) That respondent no.2 (complainant) 'does not have clean hands' and has misinterpreted the issue to be one as an act in violation of the provisions of the Act;

(ii) That respondent no.2 has no locus standi to register the FIR as the word in question (bhangi) as was used by the petitioner, was neither directed at him nor at any other member of the dalit community; and therefore the motive of the said respondent, in getting the FIR registered, was only to blackmail the petitioner and to extract money from him;

(iii) That none of the ingredients of either Sections 153-A and 153-B of the IPC, or of Section 3(1)(u) of the Act, would be made out, with no specific allegation (in reference to them), having been levelled against the petitioner, because in the entire FIR there is no averment of the petitioner promoting enmity between any different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence etc., or of doing any act prejudicial to maintenance of harmony, or being prejudicial to national integration etc.;

(iv) That the FIR thus deserves to be quashed on the aforesaid grounds, as also in terms of the ratio of various judgments of the Supreme Court, cited as follows:-

a. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 454;

b. Jones v. State, 2004 Crl.LJ 2755;

c. Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttranchal and others, (2007) 12 SCC 1;

d. State of Karnataka v. L. Muni Swami and others, AIR 1977 SC 1489;

e. Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka, (2008) 2 SCC (Crl.) 1;

f. State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1991 (1) RCR (Crl.) 383;

2. When the petition first came up for hearing, the contentions initially raised by counsel for the parties on the date, (with notice of motion issued and with an interim order thereafter passed by this court at that stage), are also considered appropriate to be reproduced at this initial stage itself, in this judgement. Thus, the relevant part of the order dated 25.02.2021, is reproduced as regards the arguments raised on that date by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the complainant (respondent no.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.

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.

He points to paragraph 5 of the petition, in which it is stated that term used, ‘bhangi’, 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”.

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)