Rajendra Shukla v. Advocate

aged about 62 years, son of late Shri Prabhakar Shukla, resident of 9 Dutta Enclave, Kanwali Road, Balliwala, within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Basant Vihar, District Dehradun.

2. The application seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the charge sheet dated

01.03.2018 and the consequential summoning order dated

04.08.2018 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2018, arising out of FIR No. 43 of 2018 registered under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Police Station Basant Vihar, District Dehradun. 1 Criminal Misc. Application No.1379 of 2018-----Rajendra Shukla vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another Ashish Naithani J.

3. The applicant was not taken into custody during the investigation and appears to have cooperated throughout the process. However, he now seeks the quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the allegations are civil in nature and maliciously instituted.

4. The present proceedings arise out of FIR No. 43 of 2018 lodged by respondent no. 2, Smt. Tara Devi, alleging that the applicant, Rajendra Shukla, a neighbour belonging to an upper caste, obstructed the construction of a sewer line and, in the course of the dispute, intentionally insulted and intimidated her with caste-based slurs.

5. The incident pertains to a passageway near their residences in Dutta Enclave, Dehradun. Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, and the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the same on 04.08.2018.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant, Rajendra Shukla, contends that the present FIR results from a long-standing civil dispute between the parties regarding a ten-foot-wide passage adjacent to their properties. It is submitted that the applicant has already instituted a civil suit seeking an injunction over the said land, which is pending adjudication.

8. According to the counsel for the applicant, the respondent no. 2 has filed the FIR maliciously and with an oblique motive to pressure him in the civil proceedings by misusing the provisions of the SC/ST Act.

9. It is argued that the essential elements of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, particularly the element of intentional insult 2 Criminal Misc. Application No.1379 of 2018-----Rajendra Shukla vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another Ashish Naithani J. or intimidation with caste-based references in public view, are not fulfilled in this case.

10. It is further stated that there are contradictions between the FIR and the statements recorded during the investigation, and the witnesses relied upon are closely associated with the complainant, thereby rendering their testimonies unreliable.

11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the present application under Section 482 CrPC is wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed in limine. It was argued that the FIR in question was registered upon a written complaint by respondent no. 2, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, alleging that the applicant, who is from an upper caste, had intentionally insulted and intimidated her with the intent to humiliate her in public view.

12. It was also submitted on behalf of the State that the FIR was not a result of any malice or counterblast to any civil dispute but followed a series of complaints made by respondent no. 2 to various authorities, including the SC/ST Commission, the Senior Superintendent of Police, and the District Magistrate in November 2017.

13. Continuing his submissions, learned counsel for the State contended that the order taking cognizance is reasoned and discloses due application of judicial mind. The investigation was fair, and the delay in submission of the charge sheet was occasioned due to administrative circumstances and was duly explained before the court. The court below found the explanation satisfactory and rightly proceeded cognizance

14. It was submitted that the defence raised by the applicant relating to a civil dispute and questions of ownership 3 Criminal Misc. Application No.1379 of 2018-----Rajendra Shukla vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another Ashish Naithani J. land cannot the basis for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, especially in a matter involving alleged caste-based atrocity, where statutory protections under the SC/ST Act are to be interpreted and applied strictly.

15. This Court has carefully perused the record of the case, including the FIR, the charge sheet, the order of cognizance passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Dehradun, dated 04.08.2018, and the respective pleadings submitted by the parties, including the counter affidavits and rejoinder.

16. The primary thrust of the applicant's case rests on the existence of a civil dispute regarding a passage, for which a suit for injunction is pending before the competent civil court.

17. It has been contended that filing the FIR is an abuse of process, and the present criminal proceedings are nothing but a civil dispute given the colour of criminality to pressurize the applicant. However, the record demonstrates otherwise. It is clear that the informant (respondent no. 2) had approached various authorities, first the SC/ST Commission, then the Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate in November 2017, alleging caste-based intimidation and obstruction of a civic amenity. These complaints predate the civil suit filed by the applicant on 12.01.2018; thus, the theory of the FIR being a counterblast to the suit lacks factual foundation.

18. Further, the learned court below, while taking cognizance, has considered the explanation submitted by the Investigating Officer for the delay in filing the charge sheet, and having found the delay bona fide and procedural, has 4 Criminal Misc. Application No.1379 of 2018-----Rajendra Shukla vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another Ashish Naithani J. proceeded to take cognizance under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. This Court finds no error of law or perversity in the reasoning adopted by the court below.

19. The charge sheet contains statements that prima facie support the allegations. It is settled law that at the stage of taking cognizance or issuing process, the trial court is not required to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence meticulously; only a prima facie case needs to be established.

20. Moreover, the argument that the FIR and charge sheet lack specific ingredients of the offence, such as the time and place of the incident,cannot be evaluated under the limited scope of Section 482 CrPC. Such matters pertain to the realm of evidence and trial.

21. Whether the alleged act satisfies the ingredients of “intentional insult with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste in a place within public view” is to be assessed at the stage of trial upon evidence being led by both sides.

22. This Court is also mindful of the fact that the power under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process or would defeat the ends of justice. This is not one such case. The defence raised by the applicant, including questions of title and ownership, does not outrightly negate the allegations made in the FIR, which prima facie disclose a cognisable offence under the SC/ST Act.

23. The FIR, when read as a whole, discloses prima facie allegations that fall within the ambit of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The materials collected during the 5 Criminal Misc. Application No.1379 of 2018-----Rajendra Shukla vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another Ashish Naithani J. investigation, including statements of witnesses, support the case set up in the FIR and warrant a trial.

24. It is settled law that the High Court, in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, does not evaluate the sufficiency or credibility of evidence, nor does it undertake a mini-trial. The issues raised by the applicant, including the defence of civil ownership, delay in the charge sheet, and the credibility of witnesses, are all matters to be raised and examined before the trial court during the proceedings.

25. No abuse of process or miscarriage of justice is made out from the materials on record. On the contrary, interference at this stage would amount to pre-empting the trial and foreclosing the prosecution's right and complainant's right to prove their case in accordance with law. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present criminal miscellaneous application lacks merit and does not warrant the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt:03.06.2025 SB 6 Criminal Misc. Application No.1379 of 2018-----Rajendra Shukla vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another Ashish Naithani J.