Criminal Misc. No. M-1793 of 2007 v. State of Punjab

with Mr. H.S. Sangha, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing FIR No. 100, dated 22.07.04, under Section 3/ 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be called as the 'Act' only), Police Station Gidderbaha, District Muktsar, and, all the subsequent proceedings, arising out of Criminal Misc. No. M-1793 of 2007 2 the same, has been filed by the petitioners.

2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 20.07.04, at about 11.30 AM/12.00 noon, the complainant/respondent No. 2, alongwith Angoori wife of Om Parkash, and other ladies, went to the office of the Municipal Committee, Gidderbaha, in order to demonstrate their protest, against the supply of less water, to their locality. It was stated that, after 15 minutes, the petitioners, reached there, in an Indica car, and abused the demonstrators, in the name of their caste, “Kuthe Churray, Dhanakians Ikatiyan Hoyian Phirdiyan Han”, in the presence of Rajesh Kumar son of Madan Lal, Sham Lal, MC, Ward No. 15, Gidderbaha, Surjit Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, resident of Gidderbaha, Amit Bansal son of Suresh Kumar, and, Rajinder Jain son of Harkrishan Dass, residents of Gidderbaha. It was further stated that, they were also told, by the petitioners, that in the elections, they cast their votes, to Akalis, and what for, they had come there. It was further stated that, after the incident, the demonstrators returned to their house. On the basis of the statement, suffered by the complainant, before the Police, the aforesaid FIR, was registered.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the instant petition, has been filed, by the petitioners.

4. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.

5. The Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that, the derogatory utterances, were allegedly made, by the petitioners, in Criminal Misc. No. M-1793 of 2007 3 generalized terms, in a public gathering, may be, in the name of caste, and the same would not attract the offence, under Section 3(i) (x) of the Act. He further submitted that, merely calling a person by caste, would not attract the provisions of the Act. He further submitted that, in her statement, Reshma Devi, complainant, nowhere stated, that the petitioners, belonged to a non-scheduled caste, and, as such, the ingredients, required for constituting the offence, punishable under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act, are not constituted. He further submitted that the petitioner No. 1, contested Assembly elections, against Manpreet Singh Badal, in 2002. He further submitted that, on the day of voting, the supporters of Akali Dal Badal, made a murderous attack on Raghbir Singh, one of the petitioners, and his supporters, and, FIR No. 8 dated 13.02.02, under Sections 148, 307, 324 and 427 read with Section 149 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act, was registered, in Police Station Gidderbaha, on the statement of Angrej Singh. He further submitted that, in the list of accused, Amrit Bansal son of Suresh Kumar and Vijay Jain brother of Rajinder Jain, prosecution witnesses, in the instant case were included. He further submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Muktsar, convicted Gurpal Singh alias Gora and Rachhpal Singh, under Sections 148, 324 and 427 read with Section 149 IPC. He further submitted that Raghbir Singh, one of the petitioners, moved complaints, against Charanjit Singh, Naib Tehsildar, brother of Surjit Singh, prosecution witness, in the instant case, and a case for forging false certificates, regarding his Criminal Misc. No. M-1793 of 2007 4 qualification for getting the job, vide FIR No. 56/2002 dated

30.08.02, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, as also under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was registered, in Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda, and, challan, in that case, was presented, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar, Raghbir Singh, petitioner No. 1, was cited, as a prosecution witness therein. He further submitted that, even Raghbir Singh, one of the petitioners, got registered another case for forging of qualification certificate, against Karamjit Kaur wife of Charanjit Singh, prosecution witness, in the instant case, vide FIR No. 15 dated 12.07.02, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in Police Station Phase I, Mohali, and, challan against Karamjit Kaur, had been presented. He further submitted that Charanjit Singh, has been working, as Private Secretary to Manpreet Singh Badal, Finance Minister in the present Government. He further submitted that Baldev Singh son of Kartar Singh, filed a civil suit, against Rajesh Kumar, MC witness, in this case, on the basis of an agreement for the sale of a piece of land and Baldev Krishan, MC, is the attesting witness of the same. He further submitted that the present FIR, against Raghbir Singh, one of the petitioners, and his supporters other petitioners, is nothing but a counter-blast and abuse of the process of the Court. He further submitted that the FIR and the subsequent proceedings, are, thus, liable to be quashed.

6. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, Criminal Misc. No. M-1793 of 2007 5 submitted that the offence, punishable under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act, is constituted, from the allegations, contained in the FIR. They further submitted that, at this stage, the Court, cannot go deep into the merits of the case. They further submitted that, if the allegations, contained in the FIR constitute a criminal offence, then the Court, is required, to stay its hands and cannot quash the proceedings. They further submitted that the FIR, is not a counter-blast to the earlier criminal cases, got registered, at the instance of Raghbir Singh, one of the petitioners, against the prosecution witnesses, in the present case, detailed in the petition. They further submitted that, the mere fact that, in the statement of the complainant, on the basis whereof, the FIR, was registered, it was not stated, that the accused, were not members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, did not mean, that the ingredients, required for constituting the offence, punishable under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act, were not constituted. They further submitted that the FIR, is not an encyclopedia, and, if the bare perusal of the allegations, contained therein, constitutes an offence, the rest, is required, to be proved, during the course of evidence. They further submitted that the FIR and the subsequent proceedings, are not liable to be quashed.

7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. The perusal of the FIR, does not disclose that, it was stated therein, by the complainant, that the accused, were not Criminal Misc. No. M-1793 of 2007 6 members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The bare ingredients, for constituting an offence, under Section 3(i)(x) were required to be stated in the FIR. Section 3(i)(x) of the Act, reads as under:- “3(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe :- (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.”

8. Even, in the complaint, it was not stated, that the petitioners, intentionally insulted or intimidated, with a view to humiliate the complainant, in public view. In Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. and others, 2008(4), RCR (Criminal), 171 (SC), in the complaint, it was not alleged, that the accused, was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the complainant was intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate him, in a place within public view. In these circumstances, it was held that, when the basic ingredients of the offence, are missing, in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint, to continue, and to compel the accused, to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial, would be totally unjustified, leading to the abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the complaint, was quashed. Not only this, the derogatory utterances, allegedly made in generalized terms, in the name of the caste of the complainant, without any specific accusation to her also do not constitute the offence, punishable under Section 3 Criminal Misc. No. M-1793 of 2007 7 (i)(x) of the Act. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in D.P. Vats Vs. State and others, 2002(3), RCR (Criminal), 716, and, Mukesh Kumar Saini Vs. State (Delhi Administration), 2002(1), RCR (Criminal), 242. In the absence of the basic ingredients, constituting the offence, under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act, having been mentioned, in the FIR, as stated above, it could not be said that the petitioners committed the offence aforesaid. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioners, being correct, is accepted.

9. Even, it appears, from the detail of cases, mentioned in the petition, and got registered by Raghbir Singh, one of the petitioners, against the prosecution witnesses, in the instant case, that the FIR, is nothing, but a counter-blast, just got registered, with a view, to take revenge and out of personal vendetta. It could not be said that it was a co-incidence, that a number of witnesses, in the instant case, against whom, the criminal cases, were got registered, by Raghbir Singh, one of the petitioners, were present, at the time of the alleged occurrence. It appears, that with a view to support the allegations, in the alleged false FIR, the persons, who were accused, in the FIRs, got registered by Raghbir Singh, one of the petitioners, were cited, as prosecution witnesses. In State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604(1), it was held that, in the following category of cases, the High Court, in exercise of its powers, under Article 226 or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may interfere, in the proceedings, relating to cognizable offences, to prevent the abuse of the process of Criminal Misc. No. M-1793 of 2007 8 any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. However, this power should be exercised sparingly, and that too, in the rarest of rare cases: 1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence, or make out a case against the accused. 2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same, do not disclose the commission of any offence, and make out a case against the accused. 4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence, but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation Criminal Misc. No. M-1793 of 2007 9 is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused, and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Where allegtions in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a Criminal Misc. No. M-1793 of 2007 10 case and investigation thereon and did not fall in any of the categories of cases, enumerated above, calling for exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, quashing of FIR was not justified.

10. The instant case, falls within one of the categories, depicted in State of Haryana and others ' case (supra). The FIR and the subsequent proceedings, in these circumstances, are nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. The same are liable to be quashed.

11. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M- 1793 of 2007, is accepted. FIR No. 100, dated 22.07.04, under Sections 3/ 4 of the Act, Police Station Gidderbaha, District Muktsar, and, all the subsequent proceedings, arising out of the same, are quashed, qua the petitioners.

12. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned, immediately.

15.03.2010 Amodh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE