Back
2011 Supreme(All) 2515
[2012(1) ADJ 86]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : S.C. AGARWAL, J.
SUHAIL FASIH .......Revisionist
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER ......Opposite Parties
(Criminal Revision No. 3439 of 2011, decided on 11th November, 2011)
I.K. Chaturvedi for the Revisionist; G.A. for the Opposite Parties.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 227 and 190(1) (b)—(Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Section 354—Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989—Section 3(1)(x)—Discharge—Application for—Rejection of—After investigation, police submitted final report—Protest petition against—CJM took cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.—Summoning order—Revisionist is a Class-I Central Government Officer—Allotted official accommodation—Incident did not take place in a public view—Before incident in question revisionist lodged a report to police at direction of DM—Regarding theft alleged to committed by complainant's daughter—Subsequently, lodging FIR against revisionist is a counter blast—Allegation of molestation—Statement of complainant falsified by statement of her husband—He admitted that his wife was not molestated—Allegation of molestation highly doubtful—No material to frame charge under Section 354 of I.P.C.—Alleged incident took place in first floor of official quarter—Cannot said to be a place within public view—Alleged word “Sali Dhobin not uttered by revisionist to be a place within public view—Provisions of Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act not attracted—Impugned order set aside. [Paras 12 to 14, 16 and 21]
Hon’ble S.C. Agarwal, J.—This revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against order dated 5.8.2011 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Farrukhabad in Special Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2006 (State v. Suhail Fasih) arising out of crime No. 578 of 2004 under Section 354 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), P.S. Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad, whereby the application 8-B under Section 227 Cr.P.C. claiming discharge has been rejected.
2. On 6.7.2004 at 6:30 p.m., a written report was submitted by the complainant Smt. Munni Devi (opposite party No. 2) wife of Ram Chandra at P.S. Kotwali Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad against the revisionist stating therein that she used to work as a part time maid servant at the house of accused Suhail Fasih, District Informatics Officer situated at Officers’ Colony, Fatehgarh on monthly wages of Rs. 325/- per month. She was not paid any remuneration for the past five months. On 11.6.2004 at 7:00 a.m., when the complainant demanded her wages from the accused, he abused her by calling her ‘Sali Dhobin’ and forcibly took her inside the room and molested her by touching her breast. The complainant raised alarm. Many persons including her husband reached there.
3. After investigation, the police submitted final report. A protest petition was filed by the complainant. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh vide order dated 14.12.2005 took cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. and summoned the revisionist to face trial under Section 354 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. The summoning order was challenged by the revisionist by means of an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. - 2617 of 2006, which was dismissed by order dated 8.3.2006. The said order was challenged before the Apex Court by means of Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1838 of 2006, whereupon the following order was passed by the Apex Court on 1.5.2006 :
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
After some argument, learned counsel is permitted to withdraw this petition. We may, however, observe that if at the time of framing of charges, a petition for discharge is filed, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudice by any observations made either by the High Court or by the trial Court in the impugned orders. The special leave petition is, thus, disposed of.”
In pursuance of the order passed by the Apex Court, a detailed application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. was filed by the revisionist before Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, which has been rejected by the impugned order. Hence, this revision.
Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State at length and perused the material available on record.
4. Notice sent to the complainant through C.J.M., Farrukhabad has been personally served on the complainant, but she has chosen not to put in appearance nor any counter-affidavit was filed on her behalf.
5. It is submitted by Sri Chaturvedi that at the relevant time, the revisionist was posted as District Informatics Officer at Fatehgarh and was alloted Official Residence No. D-33, Officers’ Colony, Fatehgarh. The said residence was on the first floor of the building. The complainant used to work at the house of the accused as a part time maid servant. On 15.5.2004, Km. Anju, daughter of the complainant, committed theft of gold bangle and diamond ring of the wife of the accused, in respect of which, a written report was given to Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad on 2.6.2004. When the F.I.R. was not registered, a complaint was made to District Magistrate, Farrukhabad and on his orders, the F.I.R. was lodged on 22.6.2004 against Km. Anju. Sri Chaturvedi contends that as a counter blast, this case has been concocted by the complainant against the accused, who is a Class I Officer of the Central Government and was re
