Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAL) 691
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J
SUBHAS TIWARI AND ANR. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR – Respondent
CRR 2380 / 2022
Mr. Debasish Kar, Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury, Ms. Jagori Mitra, Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. APP, Mr. Saryati Datta, Mr. Anit Dey, Mr. Kumar Yasobardhan Shaw, Ms. Ritoma Sarkar
Allegations of caste-based abuse must occur in public view to constitute an offence under the SC and ST Act; the court emphasized the need for caution in exercising inherent powers to quash proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 323, 341, 506, 34 - SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r)(s) - Quashing of charge sheet - Allegations of physical assault and caste-based abuse - Court found that allegations did not constitute an offence under the Act as they were not made in public view - The court emphasized that the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly and only in cases where no offence is disclosed. (Paras 1, 6, 14, 15)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 156(3) - The court noted that no preliminary inquiry was conducted before the initiation of criminal proceedings, which raises concerns about the legitimacy of the charge sheet. (Paras 4, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to quash a charge sheet alleging physical assault and caste-based insults made by the opposite party, stemming from a marital dispute. The incidents were claimed to have occurred both at the petitioners' locality and at the residence of the accused.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations did not constitute an offence under the SC and ST Act as they were not made in a public place, and the inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings was not applicable.
Issues: The main issues included whether the allegations constituted an offence under the SC and ST Act and the validity of the charge sheet without a preliminary inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allegations did not meet the criteria for an offence under the SC and ST Act, emphasizing the need for public view in such cases, and reaffirmed that the inherent power of the High Court should be exercised cautiously.
Result: CRR 2380 of 2022 stands dismissed.
1.
This is an Application where petitioners have prayed for quashing of charge sheet submitted under section 323/341/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ), Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SC and ST (prevention of atrocities Act) Act, 1989 (in short Act of 1989) arising out of Jagaddal P.S. Case no. 464 of 2020 dated 27.07.2020 being SPL 4 of 2021.
2.
Opposite party no.2 herein preferred an application under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. contending that he was married with the daughter of petitioner no. 1 herein and they were leading their matrimonial life at Lahore.
Petitioner alleged that aunt of his wife came to their house and took his wife on 14.12.2019 in the name of performance of ritual and when he went to the house of accused person on 24.12.2019 to take her back, the accused persons abused him with filthy language and assaulted him physically and also abused him in the name of his cast. Again on 4th March, 2020 the petitioner no.1 came to the locality in which the opposite party no.2 resides and physically assaulted him and again abused him with filthy languages in the name of the petitioners cast.
3.
On the basis of direction made by learned magistrate, Jagaddal P.S.
started a case and subsequently charge sheet submitted and cognizance also taken on 18th May, 2022 and thereafter due to non-appearance, warrant of arrest was also issued against the petitioner by the learned Additional Session Judge 1st Court, Barasat, where the case is presently pending.
4.
Mr. Kar Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners state that the entire allegations in the FIR are false and fabricated and has been made only for the purpose of harassing the petitioner. He further submits that the charge sheet has been submitted without making any investigation and the learned court below took cognizance by not considering the materials in the case record and the entire process was done in a mechanical way. He further submits that the ingredients of the sections of IPC , under which charge sheet has been submitted by the police, does not attract in the present context. He categorically submitted that no such incident occurred on the dates which have been specifically mentioned in the complaint.
5.
Mr. Kar during the course of argument further argued that under section 3 (i) (r) of the Act of 1989, the criminality of the section attracts when anyone who not being a member of a Schedule Caste (SC) or Schedule Tribe (ST) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a SC or a ST in any place within public view. In this context he has further drawn my attention to the petitioner’s complain wherefrom it appears that in paragraph 4 it has been alleged that the petitioner/complainant went to the house of accused to bring back his wife on 24.12.2019 but the accused persons used filthy language and assaulted the petitioner by saying that “tum jaisa nich jat ke sath meri beti nehi jayegi” “Bhumij log nich aur chhuddar hota hai” and it was further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner belongs to Bhumij Tribe and as such it attracts the relevant provision of Act of 1989.
6.
Now from the written complain it is clear that even if the contents made in para 4 of the complain is taken to be true, it does not constitute offence under any of the provisions of the Act of 1989 as it was not uttered in a public place but within the house of accused persons. Similarly, he pointed out para 7 of the written complainant and contended that the complainant alleged that on 4.3.2020, the accused no.1 came to the petitioner’s locality and threatened his family so that the petitioner might leave and forget his wife forever and assaulted the petitioner physically with fist and blows and also used filthy languages in the name of petitioner’s tribe by saying that “tum log chhotta jat hai”. Accordingly petitioner contended that even if said allegation made in para 7 is also taken to be true that the said words were uttered at the
