ORAL ORDER

1. By way of this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., the unsuccessful complainant has challenged the order passed below Exhibit-1 in Criminal Inquiry No.2 of 2019 whereby the learned Special and Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 31.12.2019 dismissed the criminal inquiry under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present revision are as under :-

2.1 It is the case of the applicant – original complainant that he belongs to Hindu Rohit (Chamar) caste, which is a Scheduled Caste community. It is his further case that on 07.09.2019, the applicant came across in social media one video clip rendered by respondent No.2 on the subject ‘Maya’ wherein he used some derogatory words which represent the castes community forming part of Scheduled Castes and which is insulting to members belonging to Scheduled Caste community. Thereafter, the applicant gave written complaint to Deputy Superintendent of Police on 09.09.2019 and the statement of the applicant was recorded on 12.09.2019, but no investigation was carried out. Therefore, the applicant approached the Court below by filing Criminal Inquiry Case No.2 of 2019 wherein by the impugned order the learned Court below dismissed the criminal inquiry and hence, the present revision is filed.

3. Heard learned advocate Ms.Ratna Vora for the applicant, learned advocate Mr. Parthiv Bhatt for respondent No.2 and learned APP appearing for the respondent State.

4. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a serious error in dismissing the inquiry under Section 203 of IPC. She would further submit that the evidence of PW-1 Ashwinbhai Parsottambhai Makwana and PW-2 Rakshitkumar Ramanlal Shrimali which were recorded during the inquiry proceedings were necessary evidence was placed before the Court to indicate that prima facie offence under Section 153A of IPC read with Section 67 of I.T. Act and offence under Section 3(1) r, t, u and 3(2) (5-A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was made out. She would further submit that the applicant -complainant had preferred application to send the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Learned Trial Court has erred in rejecting the same as an application under Section 202(2) of Cr.P.C. and further erred in dismissing the same after recording the statement of the witnesses. She would further submit that during the inquiry evidence was recorded to the effect that the insulting words were intentionally inserted in the speech to humiliate the members of his community within the public view by the accused and it destroyed and damaged the high esteem of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. She would further submit that it clearly appears that offence is made out as some words are spoken by the accused to intimidate the entire community of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The accused does not belong to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community and therefore, prima facie offence was made out. Learned advocate Ms.Vora would further submit that the CD which was produced by the complainant contained a clear fifty second clip where the accused being Sadhu from Swaminarayan sect was giving lecture and while doing so he spoke words with an intention to humiliate the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community. However, this aspect has not been properly considered by the learned Special Court and therefore, she would submit to allow this revision. Upon above submission, learned advocate Ms.Vora submits that the derogatory and offensive words were used to insult the oppressive communities which has continued to operate since medieval time in the history till date. The members of the upper caste i.e. the accused being Sadhu of the Swaminarayan sect discriminated the entire Scheduled Caste community and treated them as second class cit