The duty of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be marginalized, and the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 requires intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The revisionist proposes to challenge an order dated 07.05.2022, passed in Misc. Case No.252 of 2021, Ramchandra vs. Sanjay Kumar and others, passed by the court of Special Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar (for short, “the case”). By it, an application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) has been rejected.

2. A Delay Condonation Application (IA) No.1 of 2022 has also been filed.

3. The grounds for delay is that the revisionist due to jaundice, could not take the action on time and the revision is delayed by 18 days.

4. Having considered the ground, this Court is of the view that the delay in filing the revision may be condoned and the matter may be heard on admission. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the revision is condoned.

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

6. According to the application Section 156(3) of the Code filed by the revisionist, he was working in a company named S.I. Auto Pack Unit-2, SIDCUL, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short, “the complaint”). On 27.09.2019, he was dismissed from the service along with 09 other persons, 05 were re-employed. When the revisionist and 04 other persons approached the respondent no.2, who is Manager in the company to ascertain, as to why they have not been re-employed. According to their application they were abused with Caste coloured remarks and pressurized to withdraw their complaint and not to pursue the matter in the labour court. It also records that, in fact, on 17.12.2019, on a public road, the private respondent abused and did maar peet with the revisionist and used Caste coloured remarks.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is a poor person, who belongs to a Scheduled Castes category. Firstly, he was removed from the service without having any cause and when he wanted to know the reason, he was abused with the Caste coloured remarks, not only this, it is argued that, in fact, on 17.12.2019, he was assaulted and again abused on a public place. Therefore, it is argued that prima facie offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act”) is made out and the court below committed an error in declining for investigation.

8. It may be noted that the court below dismissed the application on the ground that the alleged incident did not take place at any public place.

9. Mere assertion in an application under Section 156(3) of the Code does not mandate a Magistrate to direct for investigation. In the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2015) 6 SCC 287, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed these aspect and observed that, “The duty cast on the learned Magistrate, while exercising power under Section 156(3) CrPC, cannot be marginalised.”

10. In the case of Priyanka Srivastava (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in the case of Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa (2013) 10 SCC 705, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that, “where jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 CrPC, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order.”

11. Order for investigation made under Section 156(3) of the Code, so as to unearth the truth and collect the evidence. It is specific case of the revisionist that since, he belongs to a particular Caste, he was abused and insulted for that reason. In order to attract the provisions of the Act, it is not always necessary that the offence could have been committed at a public place, what is required particularly, for application of the offence