Jharkhand High Court
Pradeep Kumar Choubey vs State Of Jharkhand on 22 June, 2010
Author: R. R. Prasad
Bench: R. R. Prasad
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
W.P.(Cr.) No.43 of 2010
Pradeep Kumar Choubey .......................Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Jharkhand and another......... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HOB'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Petitioner: Mr.A.K.Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jalisur Rahman, J.C to G.P.III
Reserved on 13.4.2010 Pronounced on 22.6.2010.
6. 22.6.10. Extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the Petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the first information report of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (RNC) P.S. case no.51 of 2009 (G.R.No.3691 of 2009) instituted under Sections 504, 506, 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act).
Before adverting to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, the facts of the case giving rise to this application need to be taken notice of which are as follows.
One Nathuni Ram lodged a written report before the Officer- in-Charge, SC/ST Police Station, Ranchi on 3.9.2009 at 7 P.M. alleging therein that on 28.8.2009 when he came to see his daughter, Beena Kumari at Kasturba Gandhi Residential Girls' School, Ormajhi where his daughter was employed as Warden, he came across with one Sushma Kumari, a teacher of the said school, who on seeing him, started abusing. Meanwhile, when his daughter Beena Kumari reached there, she became more aggressive and started hurling abuses by taking name of their caste with a view to humiliate them by saying that they being 2 untouchable come all over the places and make the places unholy. In the meantime, husband and brother of said Sushma Kumari also reached who joined Sushma Kumari in hurling abuses and subjecting them to assault and they held out threat to him to get his daughter out of the school, otherwise he will have to face serious consequence. Thereupon he was told by her daughter that Sushma Kumari and her husband used to misbehave with her in such manner since long and they were pressuring her to leave the school. She also disclosed that the matter had been reported to this petitioner, District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi but he never cared to take any action against them, rather the petitioner by calling his daughter in chamber used to humiliate her by taking the name of her caste. He also used to say to her daughter that she being a member of scheduled caste community does not have right to do Government service.
It has also been alleged that the petitioner used to hold out threat to her daughter to come to his term, otherwise she would not only be defamed, rather she will have to lose her job. While holding out such threat, some times the petitioner did remove her dopatta and even dashed her.
On the said written report, a case was registered as Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe P.S. case no.51 of 2009 under sections 504, 506, 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The said first information report has been sought to be quashed by the petitioner on the ground that the first information report has been lodged with an ulterior motive as the petitioner when found Beena Kumari not fit to hold the post of Warden on account of her misdeed, misbehaviour with the girl students and 3 with the colleagues asked Beena Kumari on 3.9.2009 to submit her show cause in this respect but the said Beena Kumari instead of submitting show cause, went for medical leave and, therefore, services of the petitioner was terminated on 4.9.2009.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that same complaint which is there in the first information report was made before the Deputy Director, Welfare, South Chhotanagpur Division which was enquired into by the Director, Rural Development Organization, Ranchi but the allegations were found to be totally baseless and concocted.
Learned counsel further submits that so far the allegation relating to the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, that is not attracted at all so far this petitioner is concerned, as according to the allegation made in the first information report whatever humiliating utterances allegedly made by the petitioner, that is said to have been made in the chamber and as such, the petitioner cannot be said to have humiliated Beena Kumari in a public view and as such, the offence under section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act never gets attracted.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the informant submits that Beena Kumari was working as Warden at Kasturba Gandhi Residential Girls' School, Ormajhi, Ranchi whereas another teacher Sushma Kumari, a local resident wanted to work as Warden in place of Beena Kumari and, therefore, she was adopting all kinds of misdeeds to compel Beena Kumar to leave the school. This differences in between the two persons had had adverse effect upon the educational environment of the school but the petitioner instead of taking any disciplinary action against Sushma Kumari, 4 terminated the service of the Beena Kumari motivatively. It also pointed out that services of Beena Kumari was terminated on4.9.2009 whereas the informant lodged the case before the concerned police station on 3.9.2009 and, therefore, it can never be said that this case has been filed maliciously.
Learned counsel further submits that the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is very much attracted as the petitioner has been alleged to have abused the daughter of the informant in the official chamber which is a public place and that the matter is still under investigation and, therefore, the instant prosecution never warrants to be quashed by this Court.
Coming first to the first point of conflict as to whether in the facts and circumstances, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act gets attracted or not, I may refer to the provision as contained in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act which reads as under:
"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities - (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. -
(i)- (ix) ....
(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;
(xi)-(xv)...
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine."
From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it does appear that if one intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, he would be liable to be punished for the said offence provided the person aggrieved has been insulted or was intimidated with a view to humiliate him within the public view.
5
In my view, there has been purpose to incorporate the words 'public view' which does suggests that if one is insulted or intimidated not in public view, then it would not be an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, rather the said offence would be attracted if a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is insulted or intimidated with a view to humiliate him within the public view or I can say within public hearing as even at a private place or a building, if a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is insulted or intimidated with a view to humiliate him, he can be brought within the mischief of the said provision provided such offence has been committed within the public view or within the public hearing. This view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Swaran Singh and others vs. State through Standing Counsel and another [ (2008) 8 SCC 435] wherein it has been observed at paragraph 28 as under:
"...... 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'............"
Thus, even if one makes remarks or utterances with a view to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe inside the building, he would be liable to be prosecuted provided such remarks or utterances be either visible or audible to the public. If such remarks or utterances are not audible to the public, one cannot be said to have insulted or intimidated within public 6 view with a view to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste. The said view has already been expressed in a case of Bai alias Laxmibai W/o Nivratti Poul vs. State of Maharashtra [(2001 ALL MR (Cri) 219] wherein it has been held that the expression within public view has specific meaning and in order to attract the provision of law under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the acts amounting to insult or humiliation to the member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe should be visible and audible to the public. Otherwise it would not amount to an offence under the said provision of law. Thus, the act amounting to insult or humiliation to the members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe should be visible or audible to the public for constituting an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
Coming to the fact of the case, whatever utterances were allegedly made, that were made in the official chamber where, according to the case of the prosecution, no other person was present. Even if such utterances have been made, it has not been stated to be audible to public and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have insulted or intimidated the daughter of the informant within a public view.
Under this situation, I am constraint to hold that whatever utterances were allegedly made, that were not within the public hearing/view and as such, no offence is made out under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, even if the entire allegations are taken to be true.
Coming to the other aspect of the matter, it does appear that on account of certain misdeeds of the daughter of the informant , a notice was given to Beena Kumari on 3.9.2009 to submit her show cause by the next date, i.e, 4.9.2009, but that show cause was not submitted as it is said that Beena Kumari 7 proceeded on medical leave and, therefore, services of Beena Kumari was terminated vide office order dated 4.9.2009 as contained in Annexure 2. However, a plea has been taken on behalf of the informant that the instant prosecution cannot be said to be malicious for the simple reason that the information had been lodged on 3.9.2009 whereas order of termination had been passed on 4.9.2009. The submission no doubt appears to be correct but from the statement made in the first information report with respect to his apprehension of his daughter losing job go to show that he was quite aware that the authority has been contemplating to take action against the daughter of the informant. Therefore, under this situation, ulterior motive can very well be attached with the institution of the case by the informant. That being so, the first information is liable to be quashed in view of the radio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court rendered in a case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others [JT 1990(4) Sc 650].
In the result, the entire criminal proceeding including the first information report of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (RNC) P.S. case no.51 of 2009 (G.R.No.3691 of 2009) is hereby quashed so far this petitioner is concerned.
Accordingly, this application is allowed.
( R. R. Prasad, J.) ND/