Delhi District Court
Udit Kumar vs Dr. Amita Dev on 3 July, 2024
Sh.Udit Kumar Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Amita Dev & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. ALOK SHUKLA, ADDITIONAL
SESSION JUDGE-02, SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), EAST
DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI
CNR NO. DLET01-006035-2020
Criminal Revision No. 118/2020
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sh. Udit Kumar
Technical Assistant
Age-26 years,
S/o. Sh. V.P. Shastri,
R/o. H.No. 180, Pocket-18, Sector-24,
Rohini, New Delhi-110085. ......Revisionist
VERSUS
1. Dr. (Mrs.) Amita Dev (Principal)
Bhai Parmanand Institute of Business Studies,
Govt. Of NCT of Delhi,
Opposite Madhuban Colony, Shakarpur,
Delhi 110092.
2. Dr. Mrs. Arti Kapoor,
Principal,
Kasturba Polytechnic for Women,
Near T.V. Tower,
Muni Maya Ram Marg,
Pitampura, Delhi 110088.
3. Mr. Kaushal Mehta,
Assistant Professor,
MCA Department,
Bhai Parmanand Institute of Business Studies,
Govt. Of NCT of Delhi,
Opposite Madhuban Colony, Shakarpur,
Delhi 110092.
4. Mr. S. Thiyagrajan,
In-Charge Department of MBA,
Bhai Parmanand Institute of Business Studies,
Govt. Of NCT of Delhi,
Cr. Rev. no. 118/2020 Page no. 1 of 14
Sh.Udit Kumar Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Amita Dev & Ors.
Opposite Madhuban Colony, Shakarpur,
Delhi 110092.
5. Mr. Gtvln Charyulu,
Academic In-Charge (MBA),
Bhai Parmanand Institute of Business Studies,
Govt. Of NCT of Delhi,
Opposite Madhuban Colony, Shakarpur,
Delhi 110092.
6. Mr. S.P. Ajith Kumar,
Lect in Computer application,
Bhai Parmanand Institute of Business Studies,
Govt. Of NCT of Delhi,
Opposite Madhuban Colony, Shakarpur,
Delhi 110092.
7. Mr. V.K. Nijhawan,
Lecturer Modern Office Practice
Bhai Parmanand Institute of Business Studies,
Govt. Of NCT of Delhi,
Opposite Madhuban Colony, Shakarpur,
Delhi 110092.
8. Mr. P.K. Goyal,
AAO
Bhai Parmanand Institute of Business Studies,
Govt. Of NCT of Delhi,
Opposite Madhuban Colony, Shakarpur,
Delhi 110092.
9. Mr. Rahul Kumar,
LDC
Bhai Parmanand Institute of Business Studies,
Govt. Of NCT of Delhi,
Opposite Madhuban Colony, Shakarpur,
Delhi 110092.
10. Mr. Sharvan Kumar,
Work Shop Attendant,
Bhai Parmanand Institute of Business Studies,
Govt. Of NCT of Delhi,
Cr. Rev. no. 118/2020 Page no. 2 of 14
Sh.Udit Kumar Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Amita Dev & Ors.
Opposite Madhuban Colony, Shakarpur,
Delhi 110092.
11. Mr. Naveen Kumar,
Work Shop Instructor/ PA,
Bhai Parmanand Institute of Business Studies,
Govt. Of NCT of Delhi,
Opposite Madhuban Colony, Shakarpur,
Delhi 110092.
12. Mr. Rajesh Kumar,
Peon,
Bhai Parmanand Institute of Business Studies,
Govt. Of NCT of Delhi,
Opposite Madhuban Colony, Shakarpur,
Delhi 110092. ......Respondents
Date of Institution : 02.11.2020
Date of reserve for Judgment : 01.06.2024
Date of decision : 03.07.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the Order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the Ld. MM-04, East, KKD, Delhi in CT cases No. 59164/2016 titled Udit Kumar Vs. Amita Dev & Ors., whereby the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the complaint filed by the Revisionist concluding that no prima facie offence is made out against the accused persons.
2. Briefly stated, the Revisionist filed the complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. with an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 08.02.2017 dismissed the application filed under section 156(3) Cr.PC. and took cognizance of the offence under section 200 Cr.PC. As per complaint, the case of the Revisionist/complainant is that he was Cr. Rev. no. 118/2020 Page no. 3 of 14 Sh.Udit Kumar Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Amita Dev & Ors.
appointed in the department of Training and Technical Education, Pritam Pura, New Delhi as a Technical Assistant where he was working under Respondent No. 3 Kaushal Mehta. It has been alleged that in the month of June 2012, Mr. Mehta had ordered the complainant to take stock of the Furniture and Other Articles. When the complainant found 30 UPS missing. he informed Mr. Mehta, but Mr. Mehta insisted that entry of missing articles be also shown in the Lab Register, however, the complainant refused.
3. Further, on 31.08.12. Respondent No.1 Mrs. Amita Dev called him at Ambedkar Polytechnic where she questioned the Complainant/Revisionist regarding anti-virus software installed by him in the computer systems. It has been alleged that she became angry and abused him using the caste based words like 'Jaahil, Ganwar, Chamar. Kahan se aa gaye tum '. Further, it has been alleged that she threw a bunch of files at Revisionist. Later, he made a complaint with various authorities regarding the incident but was consequently terminated from service. Revisionist led pre-summoning evidence and examined three witnesses including himself.
4. CWI only produced the record of various documents including various complaints as well as subsequent communications.
5. CW3 Mohd. Shakeel Saifi deposed that he used to work at Bhai Parmanand Institute of business studies and was posted as a laboratory Workshop technician in electronics department in Ambedkar Institute of technology, Shakarpur Delhi. He further deposed that he heard in Ambedkar Institute of technology that Cr. Rev. no. 118/2020 Page no. 4 of 14 Sh.Udit Kumar Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Amita Dev & Ors.
Dr Amita Dev, officiating principal misbehaved with the revisionist and uttered caste based words and threw file on his face. He further deposed that revisionist met him at Ambedkar Institute of technology and told him about the incident.
6. Revisionist deposed as CW2. He deposed that in the month of June 2012, Mr. Kaushal Mehta ordered him to take stock of the Furniture and Other Articles. When the complainant found 30 UPS missing. he informed Mr. Mehta, but Mr. Mehta insisted that entry of missing articles be also shown in the Lab Register, however, the complainant refused and informed Ms. Amita Dev, Principal, who ordered him to enter the missing UPS in the Lab Register, however the revisionist refused to do so because the UPS batteries were not available in the lab. He further deposed that on 30.08.12. Respondent No.1 Mrs. Amita Dev called him at Ambedkar Polytechnic and ordered him to install Microsoft essential antivirus. Witness deposed that he installed the Norton antivirus trial version provided by Mr Kaushal Mehta and informed Dr. Girish Kumar Sharma and Kaushal Mehta regarding the installation on 30.08.2012. On the same day, Respondent No.1 Mrs. Amita Dev called him at Ambedkar Polytechnic where she questioned the Complainant/Revisionist regarding anti-virus software installed by him in the computer systems. He further deposed that Respondent No.1 became angry when she was told about the anti-virus installed and abused the witness using the caste based words like 'Jaahil, Ganwar, Chamar. Kahan se aa gaye tum'. Witness deposed that Respondent No.1 snatched his diary and threw the same. He further deposed that Respondent No.1 threw a bunch of files at Cr. Rev. no. 118/2020 Page no. 5 of 14 Sh.Udit Kumar Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Amita Dev & Ors.
Revisionist. Witness deposed that later, he made complaints with various authorities regarding the incident but was consequently terminated from service.
7. The Revisionist also placed on record Transcript of Audio Recording concerning the conversation that he had had with Respondent No. 1. Ld. MM vide order dated 14.02.2020 dismissed the complaint filed by the Revisionist concluding that no prima facie offence is made out against the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the same, the Revisionist has preferred the present Revision Petition.
8. It has been argued on behalf of the Revisionist that there was no mistake/fault on the part of the revisionist on account of uploading the anti-virus in the computers because the anti-virus software was given to the revisionist by the respondent no.3 to upload. It is submitted that the revisionist uploaded the anti- virus as per direction of respondent no.3 and when the respondent no.1 asked the revisionist that he uploaded the wrong anti-virus than he came to know that the anti-virus which was given by the respondent no.3 was not correct. The respondent no.3 hatched the conspiracy and the revisionist was made scapegoat. It is submitted that the Ld. Trial court has totally ignored the material on record. It is further submitted that the order passed by Ld. Trial court is based on conjectures and surmises and is without the application of judicial mind. The veracity of the complaint of the revisionist could have been ascertained by the Ld. Trial court after summoning the respondent/accused persons under section 200 read with section 204 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the case of the revisionist was genuine which was affirmed by the SC/ST Cr. Rev. no. 118/2020 Page no. 6 of 14 Sh.Udit Kumar Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Amita Dev & Ors.
commission in its order dated 14.07.2015 but the Ld. Trial court did not take into consideration the finding of the SC/ST commission. It is further argued on behalf of the Revisionist that the conversation recorded through mobile, which the Ld. Trial court has relied upon is of 18.09.2012 whereas the incident is of 31.08.2012. It is further submitted that the evidence of the complainant dated 16.01.2020 has been completely ignored and not taken into consideration by the Ld. Trial court. It has been argued that the corroborating witness of Mohd. Shakeel CW-3 has also been ignored and nor relied upon by the Ld. trial court stating that it is hearsay evidence. It has been argued that no Opportunity has been provided to the complainant/revisionist to prove his case during trial. It is argued that under section 7 of the SC/ST Act, there is provision that the ACP shall conduct inquiry of cases under the said Act. But in the present case the SI who is below the rank of ACP has conducted the inquiry of the present case which is gross violation of law which has been over looked by the Ld. MM while passing the impugned orders. It is submitted that the complainant/revisionist deposed that respondent no.1 Amita Dev abused him and passed caste based abuses "Jaahil, Ganwar, Chamar. Kahan se aa gaye tum " and that the Respondent no.1 Amita Dev threw a bunch of file upon his face but the Ld. Trial court completely ignored his evidence and wrongly dismissed complaint. It is submitted that the revisionist filed several complaints against the respondent no.1 in the office of DTTE whereas other respondents filed several complaints/ statements against the revisionist in the office of respondent no.1, but the Ld. trial court neither considered his complaints nor Cr. Rev. no. 118/2020 Page no. 7 of 14 Sh.Udit Kumar Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Amita Dev & Ors.
considered the mobile recording of the respondent no.1 and without application of the mind dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant/revisionist. It is further submitted that the revisionist in his evidence specifically mentioned that Mr.S. Thiyagrajan, Mr. G.T. V.L.N. Charyulu, S.P. Ajith Kumar, V.K. Nijhawan, Ρ.Κ. Goyal, Rahul Kumar, Sharvan Kumar, Naveen Kumar and Rajesh Kumar gave various false complaints and statements against the complainant/revisionist, but the Ld. Trial court did not summon the aforesaid persons to face the trial under section 420 IPC. It is submitted that the complaints which were filed against the revisionist by the persons namely Mr.S. Thiyagrajan, Mr. G.T. V.L.N. Charyulu, Nijhawan, S.P. Kumar, Ajith Goyal, Ρ.Κ. Rahul V.K. Kumar, Sharvan Kumar, Naveen Kumar and Rajesh Kumar were not diarised in the office of the respondent no.1. It is submitted that as per order dated 14.07.2015 passed by national commission for scheduled caste, the inquiry was to be conducted against the respondent no.1 but the Revisionist no.2 wrongly conducted inquiry against the revisionist and hatched conspiracy against the complainant but the Ld. Trial court did not summon to the accused persons.
9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Revisionists have argued that the order dated 14.02.2020 does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety and the Ld. Trial Court has rightly concluded that no grounds exist for proceedings against the Respondents. It is argued that the Respondents are being harassed by making unsubstantiated allegations.
10. As per the allegations levelled in the complaint and pre- summoning evidence led by the revisionist before the Ld. Trial Cr. Rev. no. 118/2020 Page no. 8 of 14 Sh.Udit Kumar Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Amita Dev & Ors.
Court, it is the case of the revisionist that Respondent no.1 abused him by caste name and uttered the words, " Jaahil, Ganwar, Chamar. Kahan se aa gaye tum." Before adverting to the material on record, It is apposite to refer to Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989, which read as under:
"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-
xxx xxx xxx xxx
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with the intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place with public view.
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;"
11. It is sine quo non for the offences under section 3(1)(r) and section 3(1)(r) that the offence should have been committed in public view. In Priti Agarwalla v. State (NCT of Delhi) , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 973, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the law on the subject and observed as under:
20. The cumulative effect of the structured application to a given situation is that the intentional insult or abuse coupled with the humiliation is made in any place within public view. The expression "in any place within public view" has an important role to play in deciding whether the allegation attracts the ingredients of an offence or not, and has been the subject matter of consideration in the following decisions:
(1) Swaran Singh (supra)-
"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 Cr. Rev. no. 118/2020 Page no. 9 of 14 Sh.Udit Kumar Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Amita Dev & Ors.
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."
"19. The SC/ST Act was enacted with a laudable object to protect vulnerable section of the society. Sub-clauses (i) to (xv) of Section 3(1) of the Act enumerate various kinds of atrocities that might be perpetrated against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which constitute an offence. However, Sub- clause (x) is the only clause where even offending "utterances"
have been made punishable. The Legislature required 'intention' as an essential ingredient for the offence of 'insult', 'intimidation' and 'humiliation' of a member of the Scheduled Casts or Scheduled Tribe in any place within 'public view'. Offences under the Act are quite grave and provide stringent punishments. Graver is the offence, stronger should be the proof. The interpretation which suppresses or evades the mischief and advances the object of the Act has to be adopted. Keeping this in view, looking to the aims and objects of the Act, the expression "public view" in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present, (howsoever small number it may be), should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties. In other words, persons having any kind of close relationship or association with the complainant, would necessarily get excluded." (3) Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (before the High Court of Bombay) -
"17. Requirement of section 3(1)(x) of the old Act is intentional insult and intimidation with intent to humiliate the person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. Messages sent on whatsapp cannot be said to be an act of intentional insult or intimidation or an intent to humiliate in public place within public view. As such it is prima facie seen that no offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is attracted in the case in hand."
12. In Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand , (2020) 10 SCC 710, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed as under:
15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not Cr. Rev. no. 118/2020 Page no. 10 of 14 Sh.Udit Kumar Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Amita Dev & Ors.
merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered "in any place within public view" is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 :
(2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] , it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet.
13. In the present case, the complainant deposed as CW2 and his testimony shows that no public person was present, when the casteist utterances were allegedly made by the Respondent no.1. Further as rightly observed by the Ld. Trial Court the perusal of the transcript of the recording relied upon by the Revisionist itself belies the claim of the complainant. During the said conversation, the complainant himself mentioned that the Respondent No. 1 had only said "JAHIL KAHA SE AA GAYA". He did not say that the Respondent No.1 had used any derogatory words against his caste. At best, the word " JAHIL" may be construed as an abuse and nothing more and has to be seen in the context, it was uttered.
14. The Respondent No.1 is stated to be the Principal of the Institution where the complainant was working. It appears from the transcript of the conversation relied upon by the Revisionist that the Respondent was having an arguments with the complainant as he had installed a pirated version of software in the computer systems in the Lab. It further appears that during the course of said arguments, the Respondent No.1 had allegedly thrown a file. It is also apparent from perusal of the said Cr. Rev. no. 118/2020 Page no. 11 of 14 Sh.Udit Kumar Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Amita Dev & Ors.
transcript that the file had not hit the complainant, which fact has also been admitted in the present revision petition. In the present revision petition, the Revisionist has argued that the transcript of the recording is of 18.09.2012 whereas the incident is of 31.08.2012, however the transcript and the recording has been relied upon by the Revisionist himself. In the transcript, he himself is referring to the incident dated 31.08.2012 and stating to the Respondent No.1 that she used the word "JAHIL KAHA SE AA GAYA". The testimony of CW3 is complete hearsay. He deposed that the complainant/respondent himself told him about the incident. Thus apart from the fact that the alleged caste based abuses were not made in public view, the transcript demolishes the case of the complainant. It appears that on the date and time of the alleged incident, an argument had taken place in the office of Respondent No. 1 where she had questioned the complainant regarding pirated version of software installed by him in the computer systems of the Institute. There is nothing on record to substantiate the allegations that derogatory remarks against caste of the complainant were used or that he was physically assaulted or that any hurt was caused to him.
15. It has also been argued on behalf of the Revisionist that the inquiry in the present matter was not conducted by an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police as mandated under the Rule 7 of the Rules of 1995 framed under the Prevention of Atrocities Act. The argument advanced on behalf of the Revisionist runs contrary to the Status Report dated 29.08.2016 filed by the SI, which specifically mentions that complaint filed by the complainant in the year 2012 was enquired into by the Cr. Rev. no. 118/2020 Page no. 12 of 14 Sh.Udit Kumar Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Amita Dev & Ors.
then ACP/Preet Vihar, Sh. Amit Kumar and after completion of the enquiry final report was filed in May 2013 as allegations were not substantiated. The present revision has not been preferred against order dated 08.02.2017 whereby the application filed under section 156(3) Cr.PC. was dismissed by the trial court and cognizance of the offence under section 200 Cr.PC was taken. Further from the allegations levelled in the complaint filed under section 200 Cr.PC, no offence under the Act of 1989 is made out as there is no averment that the casteist abuse was made in public view.
16. It has also been argued on behalf of the Revisionist that the Ld. Trial Court has not taken into consideration, the order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the SC/ST commission. The perusal of the order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Commission is in the nature of recommendations to the Department of Technical Education and training, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the findings/recommendations are not binding upon a Criminal Court. In Union of India v. National Commission For Scheduled Castes, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3324, the Hon'ble High Court held that commission is not an adjudicatory body under Article 338 of the constitution and cannot issue binding directions. The record further shows that after the recommendations of the NCSCs, another inquiry was committed by a panel, which also absolved the Respondent No.1 of being involved in any discriminatory practice. The grievance of the Revisionist against the Respondent No.2 is that she conducted an inquiry against the Respondent No.1 and that Respondent No.3 to 12 gave statements in the said inquiry against the Cr. Rev. no. 118/2020 Page no. 13 of 14 Sh.Udit Kumar Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Amita Dev & Ors.
complainant/Revisionist. The allegations in the complaint against all the Respondents and the pre-summoning evidence led by the Revisionist does not show existence of any sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint. Thus I do not find any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the order dated 14.02.2020 passed by the Ld. MM. The Revision petition is dismissed.
17. It is the grievance of the complainant that he has been wrongly terminated from the service. The Court is not required to record any finding as to whether the complainant/Revisionist has been rightly or wrongly terminated from the service and nothing in the order shall tantamount to expression of any opinion with regard to termination of the Revisionist.
18. Copy of this judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court alongwith TCR.
19. Revision file be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed Announced in the open court ALOK by ALOK SHUKLA on this 3rd Day of July, 2024. SHUKLA Date: 2024.07.03 15:43:41 +0530 (ALOK SHUKLA) ASJ-2/Special Judge (NDPS) East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi/03.07.2024 Cr. Rev. no. 118/2020 Page no. 14 of 14