HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 720 of 2018

04 March, 2025 Yogeshpal --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand & another --Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Mohd. Alauddin, learned counsel for respondent no.2 (appeared through V.C.).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

The prayer made in this application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to set-aside the charge-sheet dated 11.04.2017, summoning order dated 29.01.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.04 of 2018, State vs. Yogeshpal (Case Crime No.43 of 2017), under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(d) of SC/ST Act, pending before the court of learned Special Judge/Sessions Judge, SC/ST Act, Haridwar.

2. The facts in nutshell are that an FIR was lodged by respondent no.2 against the applicant on 16.02.2017 stating therein that on 08.02.2017 applicant- Yogeshpal along with three boys forcefully entered into the house of complainant to put a flag of a political party, but when his wife tried to restrain them, they abused her with caste coloured remarks and also assaulted her and on the basis of the aforesaid FIR, a case crime was registered in Police Station Ranipur, Haridwar in the aforesaid sections.

3. On the said FIR, after investigation, a charge- sheet dated 11.04.2017 was submitted by the Investigating Officer against the applicant and on the aforesaid charge-sheet vide order dated 29.01.2018, cognizance was taken by the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(d) of SC/ST Act and he was summoned to face the trial. Feeling aggrieved, the present C482 application has been filed by the applicant.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR does not disclose that respondent no.2 to be of scheduled caste category and the applicant is of upper caste. Moreover, there is delay of eight days in lodging the FIR by respondent no.2. He further contends that since the alleged incident occurred in the house of respondent no.2, which clearly cannot be a public place and it did not happen in public view, therefore, no offence under Section 3(1)(d) of the SC/ST Act is made out against the applicant. In order to buttress his argument, he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Karuppudayar vs. State Rep. By the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy & others; reported in 2025 SSC Online SC 215.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the court below after appreciating the evidence available on record has rightly summoned the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant has committed a serious offence. He also submits the offence under Section 504 IPC is prima facie made out against the applicant as he intentionally insulted the informant’s wife and also threatened her thereby committing the offence of assault.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the entire material available on record.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para 10 & 11 of Karuppudayar (Supra) has held that:-

10. The term “any place within public view” initially came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Swaran Singh v. State through Standing Counsel. This Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand referred to Swaran Singh (supra) and reiterated the legal position as under:

“14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to be regarded as “place in public view” had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression “public place” and “in a