Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sandeep Moudgil, J.
Jitender Jatasra - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M No. 33321 of 2021
Decided On : 20-01-2024
Quashing - FIR - Information Technology Act, 2008; IPC Sections 153-A, 504, 505(2), 120-B; SC/ST Act, 1989 - The court interpreted the provisions of the SC/ST Act and IPC, emphasizing the necessity of intent and context in allegations of casteist remarks, ultimately quashing the FIR for lack of sufficient grounds.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an FIR filed under various sections including the SC/ST Act, alleging that the FIR was based on personal vendetta and lacked substantive evidence of casteist remarks or intent to insult.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR did not establish that the petitioner made casteist remarks or intended to insult the complainant, and that the allegations were based on hearsay without direct evidence.
Issues: Whether the FIR and subsequent charges against the petitioner under the SC/ST Act and IPC were justified based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere comments or expressions of opinion do not constitute an offense under the SC/ST Act or IPC unless there is clear intent to insult or incite enmity between communities.
Result: The petition is allowed, and the FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Moudgil, J.
This petition under Sections 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR No.0087 dated 22.04.2021 (Annexure P1) under Section 71 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 and Section 153-A(1)/504/505(2)/120-B IPC and Section 3(1)(r) & (u) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, ‘the Act’) and Charge Sheet No.1 dated 31.05.2021 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contented that prima facie no case is made out against the petitioner under the SC&ST Act as neither the complainant alleged that his image/prestige was lowered down by the petitioner in public nor there is any mention in the complaint whether the petitioner knew that the complainant belonged to the SC community. It is asserted that in fact the present FIR has been lodged at the instance of Superintendent of Police who has personal grudge against the petitioner because he had leveled corruption charges against the said police officer dated 01.05.2021 (Annexure P4).
3. It is argued that the present FIR has been lodged at the instance of Sh.Vinod Kumar, SP, Charkhi Dadri alleging defamation of police for exercising fundamental right envisaged under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution vis-à-vis police atrocities including fake encounter and custodial torture and the provisions of the SC & ST Act has been invoked to give weight to their concocted story.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the reply dated 01.07.2022 wherein it has been stated that during investigation, accused Rahul s/o Satbir was arrested on 22.04.2021 and he confessed that he conspired with his friends namely Advocate Sanjiv Taxak and the present petitioner and had prepared the video clip and viraled the same and the mobile phone used in making the video was also recovered. It is further mentioned in the reply that details of Facebook of the petitioner on which the video clip was viraled and personal comment was made, had been taken in police possession; the petitioner was arrested on 05.05.2021 and Section 34 IPC was deleted and Section 120-B IPC was added.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. One of the accused Rahul demanded arrest of policemen involved in fake encounter of his cousin. The policemen took Rahul in custody wherein he was tortured and his foot was fractured for raising his voice against the said encounter of his cousin and thereafter, FIR No.86 dated 22.04.2021 under Sections 323, 325, 34 IPC was registered against the policemen. In this regard, two video clips, wherein Rahul is seen begging for justice against the atrocities of the police, was circulated in the social media platform like Facebook, the contents of the transcription of video clips read as under:-
Intent and context are crucial in determining the applicability of the SC/ST Act and IPC provisions regarding casteist remarks and public order.
Delay in lodging an FIR raises doubts about its truthfulness; intent to humiliate must be established for SC/ST Act applicability.
The court ruled that allegations of caste-based abuse in public view under the SC & ST Act cannot be quashed without trial, emphasizing the need for intent to humiliate linked to caste identity.
Intent to humiliate must be established for offences under the Atrocities Act; mere airing of content without direct involvement does not constitute an offence.
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.
Freedom of speech and expression, as well as the reasonable interpretation of speech in the context of political activism and public discourse.
FIR quashed - Through Facebook ID, posted objectionable material - Religious sentiments - Petitioner has shared post of other person, even, contents of FIR does not, prima facie, establish alleged of....
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
