Advocates:
['H S RAWAL', '', 'AMIT KAPRI', 'G A', 'RAngoli Purohit', 'SHUBHANG DOBHAL']

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No. 476 of 2021

Vijendra Pal Sharma and others …........ Applicants

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others

…..... Respondents

Present : Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, A.G.A. for the State.

Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate with Mr. Aviral Fartyal, Advocate for

the respondent no. 3.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to the

Chargesheet dated 18.08.2020, summoning order dated

18.08.2020, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 08 of

2020, State v. Vijendra Pal Sharma and others, under

Sections 323, 427, 504 IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“the Act), by the court of Special

Judge (SC ST Act)/Sessions Judge, Dehradun (“the

case”).

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

2

3.

The case is based on an FIR lodged by the

respondent no. 3 (“the informant”) on 23.05.2020 at

Police Station Vasant Vihar, Dehradun. The petitioner no.

1 and the informant, both are neighbours, working in the

same Department.

4.

During the course of argument, it is admitted

on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties that the

petitioner no. 1 is Ranger, whereas the informant is the

Assistant Director in the Forest Department. They were

living in the same locality. Their houses are opposite to

each other.

5.

According to the FIR, on 24.03.2020, the

petitioner no. 1 threw empty bottles of liquor and other

garbage in front of informant’s house, to which he

objected saying that it is period of Corona, so one should

be mindful of cleanliness. According to the FIR, at it, the

petitioners abused the informant with caste coloured

remarks and attacked him and his family members, due

to which the wife of the informant sustained injuries.

There are other averments as well in the FIR. It is this

FIR, in which, after investigation chargesheet has been

submitted against the petitioners and proceedings of the

case instituted.

3

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that no offence under the Act is made out because

the alleged incident did not take place in any public view;

the medical of the injured has been procured from private

hospital and earlier also the informant had filed

complaints against the petitioner no. 1 in his Department.

He is inimical to the petitioners.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioners placed

reliance on the principle of law as laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v.

State of Uttarakhand and another, (2020) 10 SCC 710.

8.

In the case of Hitesh Verma (supra), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court took into consideration the words “any

place within public view”, and referring to earlier

judgments observed “It was held that if an offence is

committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside

a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from

the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the

lawn would certainly be a place within the public

view”.

9.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

informant would submit that the principles of law as laid

4

down in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra) are not

applicable to the instant case because in that case, the

parties were already claiming their title in a civil litigation.

In the instant case, there is no such litigation pending

between the parties. The petitioners were aware that the

informant belongs to Scheduled Caste. Reference has

been made to Section 8(c) of the Act, which reads as

hereunder:-

“8. Presumption as to offences.—In

a prosecution for an offence under this

Chapter, if it is proved that—

(a) ………

(b) ………

(c) the accused was having personal

knowledge of the victim or his family, the

Court shall presume that the accused was

aware