Delhi District Court
Smt. Deepika Kamal vs The State on 20 May, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH REETESH SINGH: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-2 (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CR No. 01/2022
In the matter of
Smt. Deepika Kamal
W/o Sh. Harish Kumar
R/o H.No. 167-A, Pocket-IV,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110091
............... Revisionist
Vs.
1. The State
Government of NCT of Delhi.
2. Sanjay Chugh
R/o 167-C, Pocket-IV,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110091
............... Respondents
Date of institution : 06.01.2022
Final arguments : 11.05.2022
Date of order : 20.05.2022
ORDER
1. This revision petition has been filed by Smt. Deepika Kamal, the original complainant of FIR no. 396/2015 PS Mayur Vihar against the impugned order dated 11.1.2021 by which the Ld. Trial Court rejected the prayer of the complainant for inclusion of the offence under section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled CR No. 01/2022 Smt. Deepika Kamal Vs The State & Anr. Page No. 1 of 6 Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC / ST POA) Act.
2. There is a delay in filing of the present revision petition against the impugned order dated 11.01.2021. In para 29 of the revision petition it is stated that the impugned order was passed on 11.1.2021. Due to the restricted functioning of courts on account of the Pandemic of Covid-19, certified copy of impugned order was applied which was received on 06.12.2021. It is stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also excluded bar of limitation during the said period.
3. In view of the fact that courts were functioning in restricted mode due to the Pandemic of Covid-19 and the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also excluded period of limitation, the delay in filing of the revision petition is condoned.
4. Dr. S.P. Gautam, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that originally the FIR was registered for the offences under section 506 of the IPC and section 3 (1) (x) of the SC / ST (POA) Act. He submitted that investigation was conducted in the said FIR by the ACP who dropped the offence under section 3 (1)
(x) of the SC / ST (POA) Act on the ground that the complainant has alleged that the accused persons used the word "Dalit" and that using of such word i.e. caste name was not an offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the said Act. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that charge-sheet was filed for the offence under section 506 of the IPC and the complainant filed a Protest Petition against dropping of the offence under section 3(1) (x) of the SC / ST (POA) Act on the ground that even calling a person by his caste name was an offence. He submitted that in such circumstances, the Ld. Trial Court should not have entertained the Protest petition as the same fell within jurisdiction of the Special Court constituted under section 14 of the Act. He submitted that the Ld. Trial Court on the other hand CR No. 01/2022 Smt. Deepika Kamal Vs The State & Anr. Page No. 2 of 6 rejected the Protest Petition on the ground that charge had been framed and the Ld. Trial Court did not have jurisdiction to order any further investigation. He submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the SC / ST (POA) Act was clearly made out in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh & Ors Vs State & Anr reported (2008) 8 SCC 435.
5. On the other Sh. Vikas Tomar, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 2/ accused Sanjay Chugh opposed the prayer made in the revision petition. He submitted that addressing a person belonged to a scheduled caste with the word "Dalit" was not an offence. He further submitted that the charge sheet for the offence under section 506 IPC was filed on 02.06.2016. The Ld. Trial Court had framed charges/ notice vide order dated 17.11.2016. The said order framing charge was not challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner at a belated stage on 15.09.2017 filed a Protest Petition only to get over the bar of limitation regarding challenge to order on charge. He submitted that the prayer made in the Protest Petition was for conducting further investigation and the Ld. Trial Court rightly relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & others Vs State of Gujrat and Anr, (2019) 17 SCC 1 in which it has been held that the Ld. Magistrate does not have the power to direct further investigation after charge has been framed. Ld. Counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs The State of Uttrakhand Crl. Appl. No. 707/2020 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05.11.2020.
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Ld. Trial Court.
CR No. 01/2022 Smt. Deepika Kamal Vs The State & Anr. Page No. 3 of 6
7. FIR no. 396 of 2015 PS Mayur Vihar, Phase-I was registered on 27.06.2015 on the complaint of the petitioner Deepika Kamal for the offences under section 506 of the IPC and section 3(1) (x) of the SC / ST (POA) Act. In the complaint it is alleged that on 13.11.2014 the complainant was taking her daughter to the school. When she went out of her home, she saw the accused Sanjay Chugh while taking out his car DL 8SBF 7085 had struck the car of the complainant and was going away. When the complainant approached accused Sanjay Chugh, he started verbally abusing the complainant and said "Daliyon ko kothi mein rehne ka haq nahi hai unhe to jinda hi jala diya jana chahiye". Upon registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted by an IO of the level of ACP. During investigation the offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the SC / ST (POA) Act was dropped by the IO on the ground that use of word "Dalit" was not a 'caste indicating word'. Charge-sheet was filed before the Ld. Trial Court on 02.06.2016. By order dated 17.11.2016 charge for the offence under section 506 of the IPC was framed against accused Sanjay Chugh. Matter was then fixed for prosecution evidence. Before any witness would be examined, the complainant on 15.09.2017 filed a Protest Petition before the Ld. Trial Court.
8. In the protest petition, the complainant contended that filing of charge- sheet only for the offence under section 506 of the IPC was incorrect as offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the SC / ST (POA) Act was also made out. It was submitted that investigation was not fairly conducted.
9. At this stage, I may note that in the case of Swaran Singh & Ors Vs State & Anr (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to consider a question as to whether calling a person "Chamaar" amounts to intentionally insulting with intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Castes for the purpose of section 3(1) (x) of the SC / ST (POA) Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that use of word CR No. 01/2022 Smt. Deepika Kamal Vs The State & Anr. Page No. 4 of 6 "Chamaar" is often used by persons belonging to upper castes as a word of insult, abuse and derision. Hon'ble Supreme Court thus held that calling a member of a Scheduled Caste "Chamaar" with intent to insult or humiliate in a place within public view is an offence under section 3(1) (x) of the SC / ST (POA) Act.
10. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh & Ors Vs State & Anr (supra), dropping of the offence under section 3(1) (x) of the SC / ST (POA) Act in this FIR was not proper.
11. In the present case, charge for the offence under section 506 of the IPC was framed by the Ld. Trial Court on 17.11.2016. Protest Petition was filed by the complainant on 15.09.2017. Basic contention made by the complainant in her Protest Petition was that the offence under section 3(1) (x) of the SC / ST (POA) Act was made out but the IO / ACP had erroneously dropped the same. Under section 14 of the SC / ST (POA) Act (prior to amendment), Court of Sessions was made a Special Court to try offences under the said Act. Keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Swaran Singh & Ors Vs State & Anr (supra) and the provisions of section 14 of the SC / ST (POA) Act, it would have been appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case for the Ld. Trial Court to have made over the Protest Petition to the Special Court constituted under section 14 of the said Act. The Ld. Trial Court however, by the impugned order rejected the Protest Petition on the ground that after framing of charge, it cannot order further investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. in terms of the law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & others Vs State of Gujrat and Anr (supra).
12. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.1.2021 is set aside. Direction is issued to the Ld. Trial CR No. 01/2022 Smt. Deepika Kamal Vs The State & Anr. Page No. 5 of 6 Court to transmit the Protest Petition filed by the petitioner to the Special Court constituted under section 14 of the SC / ST (POA) Act for consideration as per law.
Digitally signed by REETESH SINGH REETESH Location:
Karkardooma
(Reetesh Singh)
SINGH Court
Date: 2022.05.21 Special Judge SC ST Act
10:04:51 +0530
East/KKD Courts/20.05.2022
Announced in open
court on 20.05.2022
CR No. 01/2022 Smt. Deepika Kamal Vs The State & Anr. Page No. 6 of 6