High Court · 2025

Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocat e for t he revisionist s. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, A.G.A. for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand. This Crim inal Revision has been 2. t he filed by t he revisionist s assailing t he order dat ed 14.02.2020, whereby Judge, learned Dist rict & Sessions Udham Singh Nagar, in exercise of powers under Sect ion 319 of t he Code of Crim inal Procedure, 1973, sum m oned t he revisionist s t o face t he t rial in Special Sessions Trial No. 437 of 2017, arising regist ered under out of an offence Sect ions 323, 504 and 506 of t he I ndian Penal Code and Sect ion 3( 1) ( x) of t he Scheduled Cast es and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevent ion of At rocit ies) Act , 1989. t o t he t rial

3. According revisionist s, alt hough t heir nam es find m ent ion in t he First I nform at ion Report , t hey were not sent up t he charge- sheet subm it t ed under Sect ion 173( 2) Cr.P.C.; however, subsequent t o t he recording of t he deposit ions of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, t he learned Court below invoked it s j urisdict ion under Sect ion 319 Cr.P.C. and sum m oned t he revisionist s t o face t rial, and it is t his sum m oning order which is under challenge in t he present crim inal revision.

4. Learned counsel for t he revisionist s has cont ended t hat a bare reading of t he t he deposit ions of P.W.1 ( fat her of t he t hat less any allegat ion vict im ) , P.W.2 ( t he vict im ) and P.W.3 ( brot her of t he vict im ) would reveal t hat no specific, dist inct or overt role has been at t ribut ed t o t he revisionist s in t he alleged incident so as t o prim a facie const it ut e offences punishable under Sect ions 323, 504 and 506 I .P.C. or under Sect ion 3( 1) ( x) of t he SC/ ST Act , 1989. I t is argued t hat except for a st ray reference by P.W.3, t he st at em ent s are om nibus and do not disclose any concret e allegat ion of crim inal assault , int ent ional insult , int im idat ion or crim inal revisionist s, int im idat ion against m uch t he com plainant or vict im was t arget ed on account of cast e, in a place wit hin public view, as is an essent ial ingredient of Sect ion 3( 1) ( x) of t he 1989 Act . I t is furt her subm it t ed t hat t he co- accused who were nam ely, Rakshpal Singh, Gurm eet , Harj inder and Gurvinder Singh @ Ginder, and against whom t he t rial proceeded t o conclusion, t he have already been acquit t ed by learned t rial Court vide j udgm ent dat ed 23.08.2024 in t he sam e Special Sessions t hereby Trial No. significant ly eroding t he subst rat um of t he prosecut ion case it self. Learned counsel also subm it s t hat , at t he t im e of t he alleged occurrence, t he revisionist s were school- going st udent s and t he t o incident , at t easing which is of a t rivial nat ure, not disclosing t he necessary m ens rea or gravit y warrant ing t he ext raordinary power under Sect ion 319 Cr.P.C. it s highest , pert ains charge- sheet ed, invocat ion of 2017, 437

5. The scope and am bit of t he power under Sect ion 319 Cr.P.C. is no longer int egra and st ands aut horit at ively set t led by t he Const it ut ion Bench of t he t hat record indicat ing Hon’ble Suprem e Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. St at e of Punj ab & ot hers, report ed in ( 2014) 3 SCC 92. The Hon’ble Suprem e Court has held t hat t he power under Sect ion 319 Cr.P.C. is an ext raordinary and discret ionary power which is t o be exercised sparingly and only in t hose cases where st rong and cogent evidence com es t he involvem ent of a person not arraigned as an accused, and t he degree of sat isfact ion required is higher t han t hat necessary for fram ing of charge, t hough short of t he st andard of proof necessary furt her for convict ion. The Court has clarified exam inat ion- in- chief during t rial m ay const it ut e “ evidence” for t he purpose of Sect ion 319, such evidence m ust be of such a nat ure t hat it gives rise t o m ore t han a m ere likelihood or suspicion and reasonably point s t owards t he com plicit y of t he proposed accused, t hat m at erials collect ed during invest igat ion can at best be used only for corroborat ion and not as an independent basis for sum m oning under Sect ion 319 Cr.P.C. t hat alt hough st at em ent s recorded I n st and t he present case, once t he 6. accused, who were charge- sheet ed nam ed in t he F.I .R. and against whom t he ent ire prosecut ion case was originally aft er direct ed, full- fledged t rial, t he very foundat ion of t he allegat ions becom es fragile, and in t he absence of clear, consist ent and cogent evidence against t he revisionist s, cont inuat ion of t he proceedings against t hem would am ount t o an abuse of t he process of t he court . acquit t ed

7. under Sect ion 3( 1) ( x) of I n so far as t he alleged offence t he SC/ ST t he t hat ( Prevent ion of At rocit ies) Act , 1989 is concerned, Hon’ble Suprem e Court has cat egorically held t hat every insult or int im idat ion t o a m em ber of a Scheduled Cast e or Scheduled Tribe does not ipso fact o at t ract rigours of Sect ion 3( 1) ( x) unless such insult or int im idat ion is direct ed at t he vict im solely on account of his/ her cast e st at us and is perpet rat ed in any place wit hin “ public view” . I t has been em phasized t hat in t he absence of pleadings and proof t he alleged abusive or derogat ory words were ut t ered in a place wit hin public view and t hat t he vict im was t arget ed because of t he cast e, offence prosecut ion under Sect ion 3( 1) ( x) cannot be sust ained. I n t he case at hand, from t he record placed before t his Court , it is evident t hat t he st at em ent s of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 do not at t ribut e any cast e- relat ed slur or t he revisionist s in a place wit hin public view, nor do t hey specifically allege t hat t he revisionist s act ed wit h t he int ent ion t o hum iliat e or int im idat e t he vict im on t he ground t hat she belongs t o a Scheduled Cast e; hence, t he st at ut ory ingredient s of Sect ion 3( 1) ( x) of t he 1989 Act are ex facie lacking as against t he revisionist s. ingredient s of not m ade t he basic insult t o is of t his Court t he part ies,

8. Having heard t he learned counsel t he considered view t hat t he evidence relied upon by t he learned t rial Court , even if t aken at it s face value and in it s ent iret y, does not at t ain t he requisit e level of j ust ify st rengt h sum m oning t he revisionist s. The fact t hat t he co- accused who were sent up for t rial have already been acquit t ed in t he m ain t rial furt her persuades t his Court t o hold t he proceedings t hat cont inuat ion of cogency t o t he revisionist s, who were against school- going at t he t im e of t he alleged m inor alt ercat ion, would be oppressive and would am ount t o sheer harassm ent , rat her t han advancem ent of t he cause of j ust ice. I n view of t he foregoing discussion 9. on fact s and law, t his Court holds t hat t he im pugned order dat ed 14.02.2020 passed by t he learned Dist rict & Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No. 437 of 2017, revisionist s sum m oning t he present unsust ainable in law and on fact s, having been passed in disregard of t he set t led param et ers governing t he exercise of j urisdict ion under Sect ion 319 Cr.P.C. as laid down by t he Hon’ble Suprem e Court . Cr.P.C., Sect ion 319

10. Accordingly, t he Crim inal Revision is allowed, t he im pugned sum m oning order dat ed 14.02.2020 is hereby quashed and t he furt her proceedings against revisionist s in Special Sessions Trial No. 437 of 2017 shall st and dropped. fort hwit h

11. Let a copy of j udgm ent be t ransm it t ed t he Court of Judge, learned Dist rict & Sessions Udham Singh Nagar, for inform at ion and necessary com pliance. t his t o ( A l o k M a h r a , J.)

11.12.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445 e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5 109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL