Anup Singh -Revisionist v. State of Uttarakhand and Others

lodging of an FIR against the respondent nos. 3 to 14, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist initially filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. being Misc. Application No. 45 of 2021, Anup Singh Vs. Tilak Singh and Others, before the Court of learned ACJM/4th Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Udham Singh 2 Nagar, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.06.2021 on the ground of jurisdiction. Thereafter, revisionist again filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court of learned Special Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar being Misc. Criminal Case No. 196 of 2021, which was also dismissed vide order dated

06.05.2022. Feeling aggrieved, the present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist.

3. The allegation made by revisionist in the aforesaid application was that the revisionist, who is a resident of Madnapur, District Udham Singh, is a scheduled caste person. In village Madnapur, the revisionist is having land recorded in his name and he is the former Gram Pradhan, due to which, certain persons were having enmity with him and had been threatening him to forcibly encroach over the land of revisionist. That on

25.05.2021, at about 09:00 a.m, in the absence of revisionist, respondent nos. 3 to 14 forcibly entered into the house of revisionist and started hurling abuses to the family of the revisionist and also made castiest remarks to them; they also misbehaved with the wife of the revisionist and also threatened them that they will forcibly take possession of the land of the revisionist. 3

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that offence under Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act is made out against the private respondents, and, that the learned court below have not considered the contents of the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in its entirety and have committed gross illegality dismissing the said application of the revisionist.

5. Learned Special Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar vide order dated 06.05.2022 dismissed the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) on the ground that the offence as alleged in the application are not made out by the bare perusal of the complaint itself, as the incident took place inside the house and not in public place. Learned Special Session Judge, while passing the order, also made reference to the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, which reads as hereunder:- “3(1)(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.”

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another”, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710, has held that offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there 4 is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. Paragraph Nos. 11, 12 and 14 of the aforesaid judgment are extracted hereunder:-

11. It may be stated that the charge-sheet filed is for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section stands substituted by Act 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26-1-2016. The substituted corresponding provision is Section 3(1)(r) which reads as under: “3.(1)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;”

12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as “(1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and (2) in any place within public view”. in public view” had come up

14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to be regarded as “place consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] . The Court had drawn distinction between the expression “public place” and “in any place within public view”. It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view (sic) [Ed. : This sentence appears to be contrary to what is stated below in the extract from Swaran Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the application of this principle in para 15, below:“Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view.”] . The Court held as under : (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28) “28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a “chamar”) when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn 5 can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression “place within public view” with the expression “public place”. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.”

7. A bare perusal of the complaint would reveal that the entire incident took place inside a room, which clearly shows that the respondents did not use these offensive words in the public view. There is nothing in the complaint to show that the respondents uttered these words in a place within public view, or that the place where the respondents uttered these words was a place, which ordinarily could be seen by the public. Furthermore, a bare perusal of the complaint would also reveal that the respondents have not humiliated the revisionist and his family only on the basis that they belong to Scheduled Caste. Hence, this Court is of the view that no prima facie offence is made out against the respondents under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act.

8. It is also a settled principle of law that once a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been considered and dismissed on merits, a fresh FIR based on the same allegations cannot be entertained. Reference 6 may also be made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court's observations in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287, wherein the Apex Court emphasized that once a Magistrate applies his mind and passes a judicial order under Section 156(3), the matter cannot be re-agitated through a subsequent FIR on identical facts.

9. Furthermore, it is also true that the scope of criminal revision is very restricted. It is exercised just to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. Evaluation and appreciation of evidence is not desired unless some admissible evidence is ignored or inadmissible evidence is taken into consideration. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Special Session Judge reveals that the learned Special Session Judge, after considering and discussing all relevant aspects, has rightly dismissed the complaint case filed by the revisionist. Thus, the view taken by the learned Special Session Judge, cannot be faulted. Learned Special Session Court was justified in dismissing the complaint case of the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. There appears to be no illegality, impropriety or error in the impugned order, which may warrant interference. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 7

10. Accordingly, the criminal revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Ujjwal (Alok Mahra, J.) 22.08.2025