Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rasal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 16 July, 2015
Cr.R. No.416/2015
16.07.2015
Shri Kuldeep Thapak, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Dr. Smt. Anjali Gyanani, learned Dy. GA for the
respondent/State.
Heard.
This revision petition has been preferred by the applicant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 02/03/2015 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities) Gwalior in Special Case No.145/2014, whereby the charges under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506-B of IPC have been framed against the applicant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has lodged the report that complainant has sold his truck to the applicant. Applicant gave cheques of Rs. 1,70,000/- and Rs. 2,20,000/- respectively. When complainant presented the cheque of Rs. 1,70,000/- in the bank, it was bounced. He demanded money from the applicant. On account of it, on 21/12/13 at about 10-00 p.m., applicant came in the house, thrown the complainant on bed, abused him, saying that "Chamra Wale", if the cheque amount is not paid to him, he would kill him. On the basis of the complaint, Crime No.401/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506-B of IPC and under section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been registered against the applicant.
3. After due investigation charge-sheet has been filed. The learned Special Judge has framed charges under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act along with sections 323, 452, 323, 294, 506-B of IPC against the applicant. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant has preferred this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is illegal. There is no prima facie material to frame the aforesaid charges against the applicant. The basis ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are missing. Similarly, the other charges are also not made out. Hence, prayed that applicant be discharged from the charge.
5. Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate has supported the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court submitting that material collected during the investigation prima facie discloses the commission of offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act along with sections 323, 452, 323, 294, 506-B of IPC.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the charge-sheet and material available in the case-diary. It the FIR,it has categorically been mentioned that applicant came to the house of the complainant, thrown him on the bed and gave abuses. He also threatened to kill him, if cheque amount is not paid to him. From perusal of the case-diary statements of Lakhan Singh, Avinash Sharma and Mukesh Ahirwar, I find that prima facie the material is available to frame the charges under Sections 323, 452, 323, 294, 506-B of IPC.
7. As far as the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, it has been defined as under. :-
"(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view."
8. This Court in the matter of Anil Kumar Pandey Vs. Daulat Prasad, reported in MPHT-2005-3-463, wherein the allegation was that "JA BE CHAMARA TERA HISAB HO CHUKA HAI JO DEKHE KAR LENA IS PRAKAR JATIGAT APMAN APSOBDODWARA KARTE HUE ANAVEDAK NE AVEDAK SE KAHA TUJHE JAN SE KHATM KARVA FIKWA DUNGA", has held that the aforesaid words have been used without there being any intention to insult or humiliate the member of Scheduled Caste, hence prima facie no offence under Section 3(i)(x) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out. Similarly, in the case of Jagdish Vs. State of M.P., reported in MPHT-2010-5-119, word "CHAMAR" was alleged to be uttered without any intention to insult or humiliate the complainant, this court held that no offence is made out.
9. At the stage of framing of the charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence, which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence charge can be framed.
10. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao, 2012 AIR SCW 5139, the Apex Court considered the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of Cr. P.C. and held that for framing of charge, a roving enquiry in pros and cons of matter and weighing of evidence as is done in trial is not permissible at this stage. The charge has to be framed if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that accused has committed offence. Thus, even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be framed.
11. Considering that there is no material showing that the word "Chamrewala" was uttered intentionally to insult or humiliate the member of the Scheduled Caste, hence no charge can be framed against the applicant under Section 3(i)(x) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
12. In view of the aforesaid the charge framed against the applicant under Section 3(i)(x) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act deserves to be and is hereby quashed.
13. So far as the charges under Section 323, 452, 323, 294, 506-B of IPC are concerned, there is prima facie material available on record for framing the charges against the applicant, hence I find that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in framing the aforesaid charges, accordingly, the same is hereby maintained.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of accordingly. C.C. as per rules.
(D.K.Paliwal)
sk Judge