Allahabad High Court
Lallan @ Kripashankar Agnihotri And ... vs State Of U.P.Throu.Prin.Secy.Home And ... on 22 July, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 10 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2783 of 2020 Applicant :- Lallan @ Kripashankar Agnihotri And Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.Throu.Prin.Secy.Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nadeem Murtaza,Paavan Awasthi,Praveen Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Mr. Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicants, as well as Mr. Brijendra Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate, representing respondent no. 1-State, and gone through the entire file.
Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 2 to oppose this application.
2. By means of this application under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioners are seeking quashing of charge-sheet no. 1 of 2020 dated 26.02.2020 filed in FIR/Crime No.027 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC read with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST Act') lodged at Police Station Sandhana, District Sitapur and for quashing of the entire proceedings of Special Trial No.279 of 2020 (State Vs. Lallan Agnihotri & Ors), pending in the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur.
3. On behalf of the applicants, Mr. Murtaza submits that the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act are not attracted inasmuch as neither in the FIR nor in the statement of any witness it has been stated that the alleged abuses were given by the applicants to the complainant in public view.
4. On behalf of the State, Mr. Brijendra Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate does not dispute the fact that there is nothing on record to suggest that the alleged abuses to the complainant were given in public glare.
5. Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act read 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;
3.1(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;"
6. If the alleged abuses were not given in public glare offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act are not attracted. Para-14 of the judgment reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 (Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another) reads as under:-
"14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in ?any place within public view?. What is to be regarded as ?place in public view? had come up for 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 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.?
(emphasis in original)"
7. Considering the aforesaid and also the fact that if it is believed that the applicants abused the complainant by name of his caste, but the same was not in public view, the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act are not attracted and, therefore, the impugned proceedings, in respect of offence under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act, are hereby quashed. The learned Special Judge is directed to send the case-file to the competent Magistrate for trial of other offence(s) for which cognizance has been taken.
8. Partly allowed.
Order Date :- 22.7.2022 MVS/-