The use of offensive language did not constitute an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955.

P. N. Bakshi, J.

1. THE petitioner No. 1 is a superintendent of Education and petitioner No. 2 is a clerk in his office. Respondent No. 2 Sukhdas is the Head Master of the Junior Basic Balak Vidyalaya, No. 4 Gangeru Road, Police Station Kandhla, district Muzaffarnagar.

2. THE allegations as set out in this petition are that petitioner No. 1 had inspected the institution of respondent No. 2 and he found certain irregularities therein with the result that he warned him on two occasions. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 began to make false and frivolous applications against the petitioner to the higher authorities. It is alleged that respondent No. 2 belongs to the schedule caste community. A report was filed by respondent No. 2 vide annexure 1 against the petitioners No. 1 and 2. The substance of this report disclosed that the allegation against the petitioners were that they had called respondent no. 2 to be a very mean man who deserves to work at Bhatta and mend hoes. On the basis of these allegations it was alleged that an offence under section 3/4 of the Untouchability (Offences) Act of 1955 has been committed. In pursuance of this report a charge sheet has subsequently been framed on 10-7-1975 vide annexure 1 filed along with the counter affidavit. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners have approached this court.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents on the record. The relevant portion of the charge sheet is quoted below :-

"Sri Jai Prakash Mittal ke virodh janch ho rahi thi ki jismen Jai Prakash Mittal ko malum hua ki vadi ne uske virudh bian diya ha? aur vadi se pucha ki tune mere virudh bian diya hai. Vadi ne kaha ki abhi wahi bian diya hai jo sahi thha. Lihaza Jai Prakash Mittal ne vadi ko danta tatha gawahan ke samukh Jai Prakash Mittal wa Prithiviraj Sharma ne vadi ko galj dekar Kaha, Sale gihil neech tera karya to Bhhatte par int pathna, kolhu Jhokna tatha jute banana hai tumhen mastry karne ka koi haq nahin hai. Is tarah dono abhiukton ne 3/4 Chhua Chhut Act ka apradh kiya sahit hai dwara C. S. chalan adalat kiya jata hai."

Even if the allegations mentioned above are accepted it appears that petitioner No. 2 used some offensive language against respondent No. 2. I have carefully considered Sections 3 and 4 of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955. There is no provision under which the use of such words can be said to be punishable under the aforesaid Act. Section 3 of the Untouchability (Offences) Act lays down punishment for enforcing religious disabilities and Section 4 concerns itself with punishment of social disabilities. An utterance of the nature given in the charge sheet cannot by any stretch of imagination be deemed to be an infringement of any of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4. In my opinion, therefore, the prosecution of the applicants is wholly misconceived and cannot be supported in law even if the allegations as mentioned in the charge sheet are accepted to be correct. Whatever other remedy the respondent might have had against the applicants is a matter with which we are not concerned in the instant ease but certainly no offence under Section 3/4 of the Untouchability (Offences) Act is made out.

3. THIS application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is therefore, allowed and the entire proceedings in case State v. Jai Prakash Mittal and another under section 3/4 of the Untouchability (Offences) Act pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Kairana are quashed.