Insults or intimidations to a person will only be an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act if they are on account of the victim belonging to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. The challenge in this petition is made to the cognizance order dated 08.02.2022, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2022, State vs. Dr. Subhra Kandpal, by the court of District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, S.C. S.T. Act (for short “the case”) as well as the entire proceedings of the case. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been summoned to answer the accusations under Sections 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”).

2. This case was heard on admission on 12.04.2022. On that date, the Court observed “Therefore, this Court is of the view that as far as offence under Sections 504 and 506 IPC is concerned, this is definitely a matter of evidence, which would require scrutiny.” The Court proceeded to hear the matter to the extent of applicability of the case under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act.

3. The State as well as the private respondents are represented. Counter affidavits have been filed by the State and by the respondent no. 6.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The case is based on a first information report lodged by the respondent nos. 2 to 6, against the petitioner, under Sections 389, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act, at Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, which is the basis of the case.

6. Before arguments, as advanced, are to be noted the broad line of the factual aspects would help to appreciate the controversy. The petitioner is an Associate Professor (B.Ed.) in the Post Graduate College, Haldwani. The respondent no. 2, the informant is Principal of that College. Other private respondents (they are also informants) are also Assistant Professors in the same college.

7. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in fact, the informants harassed the petitioner on multiple occasions, which were reported to the higher officers by the petitioner. When the things did not stop, the petitioner was compelled to file an FIR No. 506 of 2021, under Section 354-A IPC against the private respondents. It is thereafter, according to the petitioner, that FIR in the instant case was lodged by the informants against the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel also raised the following points in his submissions:

(i) Instant case is counter blast of the FIR lodged by the petitioner. It is based on malice.

(ii) The petitioner did not have any intention to commit any offence under the Act. There has been no intimidation or humiliation of the respondent no. 6.

(iii) In fact, with regard to the dispute with the informants, when the petitioner visited the College, during a conversation, it is alleged that the caste coloured remarks were made by the petitioner. It is argued that it does not attract the case under any of the provisions of the Act.

(iv) The reading of the FIR does not make out the case under any provision of the Act.

(v) Even if, the statement of the informants or other witnesses, including the respondent no. 6 is considered, as recorded during investigation, it also does not make out any offence under the Act.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents would submit that the offence under the Act is prima facie made out in the instant case. Learned counsel raised the following points in his arguments:

(i) The petitioner used the caste coloured remarks to the respondent no. 6 in a public view, in the presence of other persons.

(ii) The respondent no. 6 and other witnesses have categorically told it to the Investigating Officer (“IO”) that, in fact, the words “Neech and Domra” were used against the respondent no. 6. It is argued that it makes out a case under the provisions of the Act.

(iii) The petitioner knew that the respondent no. 6 belongs to Tamta sub-caste, which is the prominent