C482/584/2008 of PRAVESH and OTHERS Vs SMT. PARWATI DEVI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND ATNAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No. 584 of 2008(Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)

Pravesh & others

….…… Applicants

versus

Smt. Parvati Devi

….…. Respondent

Mr. Mahaveer S.Tyagi, Advocate, present for the applicants. None for the respondent.

U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

1.The applicants, by means of present petition/application moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to set aside the impugned summoning order dated 06.01.2007, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima in Complaint Case no. 109 of 2007, Smt. Parvati vs. Pravesh and others and order dated 23.06.2008, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 23 of 2007. further prayer has been made to quash the entire proceedings of the above noted complaint case.

2.Notice was issued to the respondent Parvati Devi, but none appeared for her, despite personal service of notice upon her (vide endorsement of the registry dated 16.10.2008). appeared for her, despite personal service of notice upon her (vide endorsement of the registry dated 16.10.2008).

3.Initially, first information report was lodged by the respondent Smt. Parvati Devi against all the accused persons in reporting outpost Majhola, PS Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, on 01.12.2005, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) SC & ST Act, 1989. The investigation was conducted into the said first information report. After the investigation, Final Report was submitted on 05.12.2005. protest petition was filed by the respondent Smt. Parvati Devi. She prayed for rejection of the Final Report and cancellation of proceedings initiated against her under Section 182 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the statement of Parvati Devi was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The statements of PW 1 Panchdeo and PW 2 Om Prakash were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the statements of said witnesses and having found prima facie case against them, accused persons were summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) SC & ST Act, 1989 vide order dated 06.01.2007. Criminal Revision was also filed against the impugned order, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.06.2008. Aggrieved against the said order, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was moved. respondent Smt. Parvati Devi against all the accused persons in reporting outpost Majhola, PS Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, on 01.12.2005, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) SC & ST Act, 1989. The investigation was conducted into the said first information report. After the investigation, Final Report was submitted on 05.12.2005. protest petition was filed by the respondent Smt. Parvati Devi. She prayed for rejection of the Final Report and cancellation of proceedings initiated against her under Section 182 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the statement of Parvati Devi was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The statements of PW 1 Panchdeo and PW 2 Om Prakash were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the statements of said witnesses and having found prima facie case against them, accused persons were summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) SC & ST Act, 1989 vide order dated 06.01.2007. Criminal Revision was also filed against the impugned order, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.06.2008. Aggrieved against the said order, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was moved.

The sole contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) SC & ST Act, 1989 is made out against the applicants. Learned counsel further submitted that even if the entire evidence of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and of her witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. be presumed to be true, yet no offence punishable under the applicants is that no offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) SC & ST Act, 1989 is made out against the applicants. Learned counsel further submitted that even if the entire evidence of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and of her witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. be presumed to be true, yet no offence punishable under the

Special Act is made out against the accused-applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants read over the statements of Parvati under Section 200 and of her witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Parvati Devi stated that on 11.11.2005, at 10:30 a.m., when the accused persons were piling up the heap of paddy straw, she objected. The accused personstrespassed into her house. They assaulted the complainantwith kicks and fists. Accused Pravesh assaulted her withthe iron rod. She sustained injuries on her wrists. The accused persons used casteist remarks (while she was inside her house). Om Prakash and Panchdeo came on her hue and cry. They saved her. The accused persons againthreatened her with dire consequence and used casteistlanguage. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that since the accused persons were summoned to face the trial in respect of offence under Section 452 IPC also, therefore it could not be said that casteist remarks were aired, ‘within public view’; as is the requirement of Section 3(1)(X) SC & ST Act, 1989.

5.Learned counsel for the applicants also drew the attention of this Court towards the ingredients of Section 3(1)(X) SC & ST Act, 1989, which is being reproduced herein below for ready reference :of this Court towards the ingredients of Section 3(1)(X) SC & ST Act, 1989, which is being reproduced herein below for ready reference :

“(X) – Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate member of Scheduled Caste or ”.Scheduled Tribes in any place within public view

6.When prima facie case under Section 452 IPC was made out, it could not be said that the insult or intimidation or humiliation was committed within public view. out, it could not be said that the insult or intimidation or humiliation was committed within public view.

7.PW 1 Panchdeo said that accused persons were assaulting Parvati Devi with kicks and fists inside her house. PW 1 also said that they were using casteist language to Parvati Devi inside her house. Accused Pravesh also assaulted her with iron rod. They also threatened her with dire consequences. PW 2 although said that the accused persons were assaulting Parvati Devi inside her house, but said that the accused persons did not use casteist languagein his presence. Parvati Devi with kicks and fists inside her house. PW 1 also said that they were using casteist language to Parvati Devi inside her house. Accused Pravesh also assaulted her with iron rod. They also threatened her with dire consequences. PW 2 although said that the accused persons were assaulting Parvati Devi inside her house, but said that the accused persons did not use casteist languagein his presence.

8.Thus even if the entire evidence tendered by the complainant and her witnesses be presumed to be true, no offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) SC & ST Act, 1989 is made out on the face of it. complainant and her witnesses be presumed to be true, no offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) SC & ST Act, 1989 is made out on the face of it.

9.Hon’ble Supreme Court has provided guideline to the High Courts in the rulings of R.P. Kapoor vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Crl) 426; State of Bihar vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haqe and another, 2005 SCC (Crl) 283 (para 10)and Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 986, as to when the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised. All the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court are in unison to provide that when no offence is made out against the accused persons on bare reading of the first information report, the High Court Courts in the rulings of R.P. Kapoor vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Crl) 426; State of Bihar vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haqe and another, 2005 SCC (Crl) 283 (para 10)and Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 986, as to when the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised. All the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court are in unison to provide that when no offence is made out against the accused persons on bare reading of the first information report, the High Court

should step in to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Judging by the said yardstick, it is held, that although offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 452 and 506 IPC are prima facie made out against the accused-applicants, but no prima facie offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) SC & ST Act, 1989 is made out against them. The interference of the High Court is warranted to this extent only.

10.The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. moved by the applicants is allowed in part. So far as the order of summoning them by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC is concerned, the petition is dismissed. So far as applicants’ summoning order for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) SC & ST Act, 1989 is concerned, their application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. In other words, while the summoning of the accused-applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC perfectly seems to be in order, their summoning for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) SC & ST Act, 1989 is bad in the eye of law and is therefore, quashed. applicants is allowed in part. So far as the order of summoning them by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC is concerned, the petition is dismissed. So far as applicants’ summoning order for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) SC & ST Act, 1989 is concerned, their application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. In other words, while the summoning of the accused-applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC perfectly seems to be in order, their summoning for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) SC & ST Act, 1989 is bad in the eye of law and is therefore, quashed.

11.With the observations as above, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of. Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.

(U.C.Dhyani, J.)