Delhi High Court
Shri Ram Nath Sachdeva vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 31 July, 2001
Equivalent citations: 93(2001)DLT741, 2001(60)DRJ106
Author: K.S. Gupta
Bench: K.S. Gupta
ORDER K.S. Gupta, J.
1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners seek setting aside of the orders dated 16th December 2000 and 11th January 2001 passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate and also the order dated 25th January 2001 passed by an Additional Sessions Judge dismissing C.R.No. 2/2001 preferred against said two orders.
2. Facts giving rise to this petition lie in narrow compass. On 16th September 2000, Prakash Chand Panwan made a complaint to Police on the basis whereof FIR No. 855/2000 under section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 was registered against the petitioner. On challan being, filed, by the order dated 16th December 2000 the Metropolitan Magistrate took the view that in fact offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act') was prima facie made out and as this offence was exclusively trible by special court he sent the file to Sessions Judge for assigning it to appropriate court. However, by the order dated 5th January 2001, Additional Sessions Judge whom the case was assigned, sent the same back to concerned Metropolitan Magistrate as committal was imporper in as much as provision of section 207 Cr.P.C. was not complied with After case was received back, by the order dated 11th January 2001 the Metropolitan Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed Crl. Revision 2/2001 against both the said orders dated 16th December 2000 and 11th January 2001 which came to be dismissed by an Additional Sessions Judge by the order dated 25th January 2001. This is how the matter is before this court.
3. Submission advanced by Sh. S.S.Gandhi for petitioner was that (1) taking the allegations and complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, case under section 3(1)(x) of the Act was not made out as the utterance which is allegedly attributed to the petitioner, was not made "within public view" and (2) under Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrbcities) Rules, 1995 an offence committed under the Act has to be investigated by an appointed police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintend of Police but the investigation in this case was conducted by the officers much below that rank and such an investigation cannot be made the basis to fasten criminal liability under said section 3(1)(x) against the petitioner. Reliance was placed on the decisions in M.Niranjan Reddy and other vs. State of A.P., 2000 Cr. L.J.3125 and E.Krishnan Nayanar vs. Dr. M.A.Kuttappan, Member, Kerala Legislative Assembly and others; 1977 Crl. L.J. 2036.
4. Copy of the complaint dated 16th September 2000 addressed to SHO PS Saraswati Vihar lidged by said Prakash Chand Panwan is placed on Page 28 of the file. It is alleged therein that he Along with Morcha Secretary visited the house of petitioner who is a Municipal Councillor, at 49, Chander Lok for redressing the grievances of common people. The petitioner threw away the written papers of grievances, thrashed and pushed him outside the house the insulted by using the words against his caste "Neech" "kamina" "chura chamar", Section 3(1)(x) of the Act under which cognizance was taken by the order dated 16th December 2000 which is material, runs as under:-
"3(1) Whoever, not being a member or a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe -
.....
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humillate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
.....
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to 5 years and with fine."
5. In the site plan (copy at page 44) the incident is shown to have taken place at mark "A" inside House No. 49, Chander Lok. In his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Shashi Pal, Morcha Secretary also stated that occurrence had taken place inside the said house of petitioner. Thus, as per the prosecution case, only the complainant who was accompanied by Shashi Pal, was present inside the house at the time the petitioner allegedly insulted him by uttering the remarks as noted in complaint. In my view, such insult not being "within public view" would not attract said clause (x) of Section 3(1) of the Act. As laid down in the decision in State of Haryana and other vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, one of the categories wherein power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised is where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint even if they are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirely do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. Therefore, aforesaid order dated 16th December 2000 taking cognizance under section 3(1)(x) passed by Metropolitan Magistrate as also order dated 25th January 2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge declining to interfere with the Magistrate's order, deserve to be quashed, Decision in E.Krishanan Nayanar's case (supra) has no applicability to the facts of this case as the issue involved therein was whether an offence under section 3(1)(x) could be said to have been made out against a person who had uttered derogatory remarks in a public meeting against another person not even present there.
6. Coming to second limb of argument referred to above in my opinion, there may not be the violation of Rule 7 as cognizance of said offence was taken by the court itself. In M.Niranjan Reddy's case (supra) the chargesheet under section 3(1)(x) was filed on the basis of investigation made by a Circle Inspector and not the Deputy Superintendent which is not the case here.
7. For the foregoing discussion, while allowing petition, the orders dated 16th December 2000 and dated 25th January 2001 are set aside. Since challan was filed under aforementioned Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 the Metropolitan Magistrate would proceed in the matter in accordance with law.