Orissa High Court
Pintu @ Subhasish Rout & Another vs State Of Odisha & Another ......... ... on 8 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.141 of 2024
Pintu @ Subhasish Rout & another ......... Petitioners
Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, Senior Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & another ......... Opposite Parties
Mr. B.K. Ragada,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
08.02.2024 Order No.
01. 1. In the present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the cognizance order dated 26.06.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhadrak in Special (SC/ST) Case No.24 of 2023 whereby the learned trial Court has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections- 323/ 294/ 354/ 34 IPC r/w Section- 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of SC/ST(POA) Act against the petitioners.
2. Mr. Debi Prasad Dhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has taken me to the gravamen of the allegations made against his clients. The allegation in the F.I.R. and the charge sheet indicates that on 19.02.2023, the mother-in-law of the complainant had died. They had brought the dead-body from the hospital and kept the body in front of the 2 house of the complainant. At that time, construction work of a building of the accused persons was going on. The complainant asked the workers to stop the construction work of the building till the rituals are conducted. To this, the accused persons got annoyed and scolded the complainant in filthy language aspersing her caste. The accused persons also gave fist blows to the complainant.
3. On the strength of the aforementioned allegations, the petitioners were subjected to criminal prosecution.
4. Learned Court below, vide order dated 26.06.2023 has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections- 323/ 294/ 354/ 34 IPC r/w Section- 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of SC/ST(POA) Act against the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the allegations and evidence placed on record by the prosecution are taken at its face value no case as such is made out against his clients under Section 3(1) (r)
(s)/3(2)(va) of SC/ST(POA) Act. He has relied upon two judgments to substantiate his argument.
6. Firstly, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710. He has relied upon paragraphs-18 & 20 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
3
"18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.
20. Later, while examining the constitutionality of the provisions of the amending Act (Central Act 27 of 2018), this Court in a judgment reported as Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India held that proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code. It was held as under : (SCC p. 751, para 12) "12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing the cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters, as already observed while deciding the review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no argument to the contrary has been raised."
He has also relied upon the judgment dated 19.12.2022 of the coordinate Bench of this Court passed in CRLMC No.2628 of 2013. He relies upon paras-4 and 8 of the said judgment which reads as under:
"4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below framed charge mechanically which is erroneous, illegal and against the weight of evidence on record. It is further submitted by Mr. Mohapatra that the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC&ST (PoA) Act are not satisfied and hence, the charge for the said offence cannot be sustained in law. It is contended that even by assuming for the sake of argument that during the alleged incident, the informant was abused by taking name of his caste that by itself does not make out an offence Section 3(1)(x) of the SC&ST (PoA) Act since the intention should be to insult or intimidate a person he being a member of Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST). While advancing such an argument, the decision of the Apex Court in Hitesh Verma vrs. The State of Uttarakhand and Another reported in (2021) 81 OCR (SC) 241 has been placed reliance on by Mr. Mohapatra.
8. The Apex Court in Hitesh Verma (supra) held and observed that the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC&ST (PoA) Act which now stands substituted by Section 3(1)(r) of 4 the said Act with effect from 26th January, 2016 shall have to be fulfilled with the requisite mens rea on the part of the accused to intentionally insult or intimidate a person of SC or ST to humiliate him within public view. In the said decision, it is observed that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC&ST (PoA) Act would bear the ingredients of insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of SC and ST; all insults or intimidation would not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of the victim belonging to SC or ST since the object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic condition of such persons as they are denied number of civil rights and thus an offence under Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment; that another key ingredient of the provision is insult, intimidation not necessarily only at public place but in any place with public view and while observing so, one of its earlier judgment in the case of Swaran Singh and Others vs. State and Others (2008) 41 OCR (SC) 414 was referred to which has drawn the distinction between the expression 'public place' and 'in any place within public view'."
7. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was no intention attributed to the petitioners for insulting the complainant. Therefore, the offences under Section 3(1) (r) (s)/3(2)(va) of SC/ST(POA) Act are not attracted.
8. Mr. Maharaj, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State submits that the judgments cited by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners namely Hitesh Verma (supra) will not come to the aid of the petitioners in view of para-12 of the said judgment which reads as under:-
"12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as "(1) intentionally insults or intimidate with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and (2) in any place within public view".5
9. I have taken into consideration the averments made in the F.I.R., charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses.
10. Taking into consideration the judgments cited at the Bar, I am persuaded to issue notice to the opposite party no.2 by Registered Post with A.D. making it returnable within two weeks. Requisites shall be filed within a week.
11. In the meantime, the further proceedings in Special (SC/ST) Case No.24 of 2023 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Bhadrak is stayed until further orders.
12. List this matter on 18.03.2024.
(S.S. Mishra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 09-Feb-2024 09:59:51