The Allahabad High Court while allowing an application held that unintentional caste-related remarks made against a Scheduled Caste person do not constitute the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
A Single Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar passed this order while hearing an application filed by Alka Sethi and Another.
The applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by applicants Alka Sethi and her husband Dhruv Sethi seeking quashing of the entire proceedings as well as the summoning and cognizance order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Court of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Saharanpur in Sessions Case No 182 of 2024 and the charge-sheet dated 27.11.2023, arising out of Case under Sections 332, 341, 353, 389, 504, 506 I.P.C and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Biharigarh, District Saharanpur.
As per the allegations levelled in the F.I.R, on 18.08.2023 at about 1:40 p.m when informant-Lekhpal-opposite party no 5 was standing outside the road of village Satpura and inspecting some Khasra numbers, at that time applicant along with his wife came there and started abusing him with filthy caste related language and has also stated that if he do not follow his dictates, he will get him implicated in the case of misbehaving with his wife as well as in case of corruption. Applicant had also detained the informant, later he was released on intervention of S.H.O, Biharigarh.
Counsel for the applicants submitted that the genesis of the case arose from a piece of land which was purchased by the applicants, who are husband and wife and resident of Dehradun. This land in Saharanpur was purchased by the applicant from Lokesh Mittal through a registered sale deed dated 02.08.2016 executed in favour of Dhruv Sethi (applicant no 2). Pursuant to the sale deed his name was mutated in the revenue record and thereafter, applicant being co-sharer of the land filed a suit under Section 116 of U.P Revenue Code before S.D.M Behat, Saharanpur in the year 2021 for division of holding, which was decreed in favour of the applicant vide order dated 09.06.2022 and 09.01.2023. Thereafter the applicants sought for a demarcation.
He further submitted that despite the order of S.D.M, concerned officers (opposite party no 5) were delaying the process of demarcation.
Per contra, Gaurav Kakkar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no 5, (who is complainant in this case) submitted that the applicants in the case are basically the persons who are dealing in real estate. The prosecution story is also supported by the witnesses whose statements were recorded.
He further submitted that prima facie case is made out in the F.I.R so the Court should not interfere and use the inherent power.
The Court noted that,
Looking into the background of the case, it is clear that the applicant No 2 had purchased a piece of land and after mutation applied for demarcation. Despite the order of demarcation, the same was not carried out by the revenue officers for the reasons best known to them. The applicant No 2 had no other choice but to make a complaint to the Senior Officers and in spite of the direction, the concerned S.H.O has chosen not to follow the same. When the Senior Officer District Magistrate directed to lodge the F.I.R, opposite party no 4 in connivance with the opposite party no 5 did not lodge the F.I.R on 18.08.2023. But the opposite party no 5 who came to know, that the F.I.R was about to be lodged against him, after lapse of 48 hours, he lodged an the F.I.R under sections 332, 353, 389, 504 I.P.C read with section 3(1)(dha) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the applicants.
In this case, it is clear that there was a dispute between the parties. Opposite party No 5 was not carrying out the demarcation for that he made the applicant run from pillar to post. When pressure was exerted upon him, he assured that the demarcation would be carried out in front of the parties. But shockingly he started demarcation behind the back of applicants, when the same was objected to, a scuffle broke out, which resulted in the filling of the application. The genesis of the entire dispute shows that the F.I.R lodged on 18.8.2023 was nothing but a counterblast to the earlier proceedings and just to ensure that the applicants do not lodge the complaint against the opposite party No 5.
The Court observed that,
Further the story that the applicant had tied down the revenue officer and was released when the Senior Officers came to the spot is also quite unbelievable, as to how a man and a lady could overpower so many people and tie them up and detain them till the intervention of the Senior Officers who came on the spot.
Undoubtedly it is clear misuse and abuse of process of law there is not even single iota of evidence to show that the applicants are aware of the Caste of the opposite party No 5 and in absence of knowing the same, it is hard to believe that the applicants had used Caste related words against the opposite party No 5. Whereas there is no evidence to show that the offence as alleged to have been committed, was committed on the ground that the victim/opposite party No 5 was the member of the scheduled Caste.
In view of the judgments laid down by the Supreme Court unless and until it is proved that the applicants are aware of the Caste of the victim, there is no occasion for him to make such a comment, or even if made, it would be unintentional, and hence the same would not fall under the offence under 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The plain reading of the F.I.R even if it is accepted, do not prima facie constitute an offence as there is nothing to show that the applicants are aware of his Caste or made a comment knowingly with the intention to disgrace him. Further as per the allegation made in the F.I.R no prudent person can reach to just conclusion that there was ground for proceeding against the accused.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Dinesh vs State of Rajasthan (supra) and Khuman Singh (supra), the Court allowed the application and the proceedings initiated in Case under Sections 332, 341, 353, 389, 504, 506 I.P.C and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Biharigarh, District Saharanpur are hereby quashed by the High Court.
The Court will be failing in its duty, if such kind of activities are allowed to take place in the State of U.P by none other than the government servant. Here the connivance of land mafias, the Revenue Officers and the then S.H.O, seems to be playing a major role, wherein a couple has wrongly been implicated in the criminal proceedings and they have been forced to run from pillar to post. The conduct and connivance of the revenue officials, police personnels and the land mafias are also to be investigated. The F.I.R lodged by the applicant in Case Police Station-Biharigarh and also the complaints made on IGRS/Dashboard on 12.08.2022 and 27.01.2023 needs to be properly investigated, the Court said.
The Court directed the Director General of Police to get the matter investigated by the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police. The investigation may be completed preferably within 4 months.