Back
2018 Supreme(UK) 369
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narayan Singh Dhanik
Criminal Misc. Application No. 632/2010
MAHENDRA BHATT & ORS. – Applicant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. – Respondent
Decided on : 14.12.2018
For the Applicant :Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Pratiropp Pandey, AGA
Headnote:
(A) Criminal Jurisprudence – It is settled law that when the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint – Permitting such a complaint to continue and compelling the accused/applicants to face the criminal trial u/s 3(1)(x), SC/ST Act, totally unjustified and abuse of process of law. (Paras 6 to 11)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 482 – It is well settled law that while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482, Cr.P.C. – Court should not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence, in question was reliable or not. (Paras 6 to 11)
¼v½ vijkf/kd fof/k’kkL= & ;g LFkkfir fof/k gS fd tc f’kdk;r esa vijk/k ds vkèkkjHkwr la?kVd vuqifLFkr ik, tk,a rc dfFkr f’kdk;r dks dk;e j[kuk & vkSj vfHk;qDr@vihykfFkZ;ksa dks varxZr /kkjk 3(1)(x), vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr vijkf/kd okn ds fy, foo’k djuk] iw.kZr% vU;kf;d o fof/k izfØ;k dh voekuuk gSA
¼izLrj 6 ls 11½
¼c½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 482 & ;g iw.kZr% LFkkfir fof/k gS fd varxZr /kkjk 482] n.M izfØ;k lafgrk vf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx dj] U;k;ky; }kjk tk¡p dh ‘kq:vkr ugha djuh pkfg, fd iz’u esa lk{; fo’oLr Fkk ;k ughaA ¼izLrj 6 ls 11½
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Narayan Singh Dhanik, J.
1. Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate, for the accused applicants.
2. Mr. Pratiropp Pandey, AGA, for the State/respondent no. 1.
3. None for the private respondent no. 2.
4. Heard.
5. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused applicants have prayed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1263/2009 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 504, 323, 427 IPC and one under Section 3(1)x of the SC/ST Act, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.
6. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent no. 2 Prakash Chandra Arya lodged an FIR on 11.10.2009 in the Police Station Khatima alleging that at 7.30 o'clock in the morning of 11.10.2009, applicant no. 1 Mahendra Bhatt along with his 15 companions armed with sword, pistol and lathi entered into his house and hurled abuses and caste indicating words “Neech" and “Chamar" and also assaulted him as well as his brother and looted articles from his house. Complainant alleged in the FIR that his brother suffered serious injuries in the incident. On the basis of this FIR, a case was registered and after investigation, the police submitted the chargesheet against the accused applicants, on the basis of which learned Magistrate took the cognizance against the accused applicants and summoned them vide order dated 26.11.2009 to face the trial for the offences under Sections under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 504, 506 323, 427 IPC and one under Section 3(1)x of the SC/ST Act.
7. Learned Counsel for the accused applicants argued that the provisions of the SC/ST Act are not attracted in this case as in the FIR, it is nowhere mentioned that the accused applicants are not the members of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe and the accused applicants intentionally insulted or intimidated the complainant and his brother with intent to humiliate them in a place within public view. Hence, the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is not made out.
8. I find force in the argument put forth on behalf of the accused applicants inasmuch as a bare perusal of the FIR itself reveals that there is no mention whatsoever in the said FIR that the accused applicants are not the members of the Scheduled Case or Scheduled Tribe community and the complainant and his brother were intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate them within public view.
9. It is settled law that when the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to 3 compel the accused applicants to face the criminal trial under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.
10. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others reported in 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 446.
11. So far as the rest of the offences are concerned, it transpires that the same involves absolutely disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided by this Court at this stage. The trial court will decide the same after recording the evidence and appreciation of the same as per law. Even otherwise, it is well settled law that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the Court should not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence, in question, is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the present C482 petition is partly allowed. Proceedings against the petitioner under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act are hereby quashed. However, proceedings under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 504, 323, 427 IPC shall proceed against the accused applicants as per law as prima facie case under these sections is made out against the accused applicants.
13. Interim order dated 07.07.201
