MOUMITA BHATTACHARYA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & Ors.

Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, arising out of Amherst Street Police Station case no. 266/21 dated 4.12.21 pending before the Court of learned judge, Bench – one, City Sessions Court. Brief fact of the case

#2. The petitioner is a student and teacher who completed her B.A, M.A and PhD in Sanskrit from Viswa Bharati University. The Opposite Party no. 2 is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sanskrit at the Sanskrit College & University. A complaint was lodged by Opposite Party no. 2 with the Officer-in- charge of Amherst Street, Police Station, against the petitioner for her motivation for alleged actions driven by jealousy and resentment towards the professional and academic achievement of the complainant / Opposite Party no. 2 who belong to schedule caste community and joined the Department of Sanskrit College on 14.11.2018 as Assistant Professor . The opposite party was deprived of making any development of the department with his ideas and concept because of the actions by the petitioner /accused who taking advantage of her position as the Head of Department of Sanskrit did not conduct any departmental meetings and convey any departmental decisions to the Opposite Party no. 2 ,was not provided with the resolutions of the meetings in violation of the rules and regulations of the university . She intentionally stopped the undergraduate classes of the Opposite Party no. 2 for the even semester , 2021 and also conspired with few students to prevent the Opposite Party no. 2 from examination and evaluation duty for the UG, 3rd semester, 2020. It was also alleged that she intentionally insulted and humiliated the Opposite Party no. 2, in presence of other students in an online meeting with abusive, offensive, inappropriate and un-parliamentary languages and thereby continuously torturing the Opposite Party no.2 mentally in various ways and destroyed the academic carrier of the Opposite Party no. 2, leaving him mentally, shocked and traumatised only because he belongs to schedule caste community.

#3. The complaint was lodged on December 4, 2021 and on completion of a purported investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted on April 10, 2022 against the petitioner under the above mentioned provision of the Act. The learned court on receipt of the charge-sheet took cognizance of the offences against the petitioner and direct issuance of summons upon the petitioner. Accordingly filed this revision application for quashing of the entire proceeding being frivolous in nature. Submissions

#4. The learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a diligent student, a passionate teacher and first rate researcher among the many hats she has own. She has completed her Ph.D in Sanskrit from Vishwa Bharati University and was awarded a fellowship during her PHD programme. She also completed a bachelor in education program from University of Bardwan, passed SLET examination, completed a post-doctoral fellowship from the esteemed Asiatic Society, Kolkata and is an Editorial Board Member of Vyasasrih and Sciencia. She also earlier acted as the head of the Department of Sanskrit at the Sanskrit College & University. Therefore being such a qualified lady, she has been falsely implicated in this case totally out of grudge and ill motive. She is completely innocent, and the proceeding initiated is gravely mala fide, vexatious and persecutory, and do not disclose commission of any offence as alleged. No ingredient to attract any offence under the provision of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 can be found. It is further argued that in order to constitute an offence under the said provision the allegations must inter alia express that the accused petitioner was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the Opposite Party number two was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the petitioner with intent to humiliate in a place within public view.

#5. It is further argued that the basic requirements are to be prima facie satisfied to constitute the offence alleged as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the decision of Goeiege Pentaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh & amp; another reported in1 It was held that according to the basic ingredients of Section 3 (1)(r) of the act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused was not a member of the schedule, caste, or schedule tribe and was intentionally intimidated. The complaint is absolutely silent about such statement. In the State of Haryana versus Bhajanlal reported in2 certain criteria as were laid down by the Hon’ble apex court, under which the High Court may exercise their inherent powers in order to quash a proceedings. Therefore, the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed. Analysis

#6. Heard the Submission. In the case of Saajan Skarai versus state of Kerala & Anr.3 as has been relied upon where the Supreme Court held there is no bar on anticipatory bail, unless prima facie offence is made out. It was further held that the duty of the courts to determine prima facie existence of the case is cast upon the court, with a view to ensure that no unnecessary humiliation is caused to the accused. The courts should not shy away from conducting a preliminary enquiry to determine if the narration of facts in the complaint/FIR,