Himachal Pradesh High Court
Manjeet Singh Saini vs State Of H.P And Another on 18 December, 2023
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.MMO No. 13 of 2023
Reserved on : 23.11.2023
Decided on: 18th December, 2023
.
Manjeet Singh Saini .......Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P and another ...Respondents
Coram
of
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner:
rt Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Jai Ram
Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. A.G. for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Gobind Korla, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)
Petitioner-Manjeet Singh Saini has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.'), with a prayer to quash FIR No. 71 of 2021 dated 13.03.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the 'FIR in question'), under Sections 354A and 355 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (w) (i) (ii), 3(2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 2'SC & ST Act'), registered with Police Station, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, .
Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned trial Court).
2. According the petitioner, respondent No.2 has got of registered the FIR in question. According to him, the police has investigated the matter and submitted report under Section 173(2) rt Cr.P.C before the learned trial Court.
According to the petitioner, the allegations which have been levelled against him by respondent No.2 are bald, vague and unreliable, as no specific date or time has been mentioned with regard to the alleged incidents and the FIR has been lodged after an unexplained and unreasonable delay of 5 years.
3. According to him, statement of K. Vinatha Devi is stated to be based upon hearsay, which, according to the petitioner, has no evidentiary value in criminal law.
According to the petitioner, the witnesses, whose statements have been relied upon by the prosecution, are already in a hostile relationship with the petitioner and according to him, he was having the administrative differences with Smt. ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 3 Vinatha Devi. In this regard, the petitioner has also relied upon the report of District Level Local Complaint Committee.
According to him, Vinatha Devi had also filed a complaint .
with the police on 30.03.2019. In the investigation by the police, the report of Smt. Vinatha Devi was also found to be false.
of
4. It is his further case that in the inquiry conducted by the District Level Local Complaint Committee for rt Prevention of Sexual Harrassment of Women at workplace, respondent No.2 had also got recorded her statement, in which, she has specifically mentioned that the allegations made by Smt. Vinatha Devi are false. In the said inquiry, statement of wife of the petitioner was also recorded.
5. The petitioner has sought the relief of quashing on the ground that the allegations levelled by Smt. Vinatha Devi were found to be false. It is his further case that he has supplied the documents to the investigating agency, but, those documents have not been made part of the final report. Those documents are stated to be undisputed and unimpeachable. The petitioner has asserted the fact that statements of Dr. Shatrughan Singh, Shailesh Kumar, Dr. Rakesh Kumar, Chaman Lal, Sant Ram, Meera, Daya Rani, ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 4 Himani Thakur and Anjana Kumari have also been recorded by the police, which are annexed with the final report, but, these witnesses have also not supported the allegations.
.
5.1. The relief of quashing has also been sought on the ground that on the complaint made by respondent No.2, the department had also constituted an Inquiry Committee and of as per report of the Inquiry Committee, those allegations were found to be false.
5.2.
rt In order to get the relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (1988) 1 SCC 692, (2010) 11 SCC 226, 1992 Suppl. (i) SCC 335, (2013) 3 SCC 330 and (1998) 5 SCC 749.
5.3. Lastly, the petitioner has sought the relief of quashing on the ground that he is performing his duties of Assistant Professor (Special Education)-cum-Officer Incharge for the last 20 years, as such, he has been awarded with 'The best employee award' by the National Institute for Visually Handicapped Department and his institution i.e. CRC Sundernagar has also awarded him with 'Best CRC Award'.
5.4. On the basis of above facts, a prayer been made to allow the petition as prayed for.
::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 56. In order to buttress the contention, Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate has relied upon the decisions in .
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, (1988) 1 SCC 692, Minu Kumari and another vs. State of Bihar and others, (2006) 4 SCC of 359, State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Gourishetty Mahesh and others, (2010) 11 SCC 226, Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan rt Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, (2020) 10 SCC 710, Pepsi Foods Limited and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, (1998) 5 SCC 749 and Diwaker Dev Sharma and others vs. Government Railway Police Station and another, Latest HLJ 2023 (HP) (1) 502.
7. When put to notice, the State has filed the reply, by mentioning the fact that the complainant has made a statement to the Police Station, Sundernagar under Section 154 Cr.P.C., levelling the allegations against the petitioner and one Sandeep Trivedi. The said FIR was registered under Sections 354A and 355 IPC and Section 3(1) (w) (i) (ii), 3(2) (va) of SC & ST Act. The investigation was conducted by the Dy. S.P. (Headquarter). After completion of investigation, the ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 6 police filed the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C against the petitioner, Pradeep Pahwa and Sandeep Trivedi. Other allegations have been denied.
.
8. Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., has elaborately been discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the year 1992, in the lead case reported as 1992 Cr.LJ, 527, titled as State of of Haryana Vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal & Others, in which, the Hon'ble Apex Court has formulated the guidelines for rt exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Relevant paragraph 107 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:-
"107. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate with the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 7
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the FLR do not constitute a .
cognizable offence but constitute only. a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and rt continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
9. This view has again been reiterated by a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 315. Relevant paragraph 38 of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
38. In the case of Golconda Lingaswamy (supra), after considering the decisions of this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra) and other decisions on the exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in paragraphs 5, 7 and 8, it is observed and held as under:
"5. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 8 Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of .
justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds of expression in the section which merely recognises and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal, possess in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a rt wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alique concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist.
Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 9 and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it .
accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person of needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death.....
8. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and rt the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles.
The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 : AIR 1993 SC 892] and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 1] .] It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognisance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 10 is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/FIR has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the .
complainant or disclosed in the FIR that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/FIR is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the of material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding."
rt
10. While deciding the petition under Section 482 Cr.PC, this Court has to see whether a prima facie case, is made out, from the report, under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, or not.
The defence, which the accused, has to prove or probabilize, will not be considered, at this stage.
11. It is no longer res integra that at the time of deciding the petition under Section 482 Cr.PC, this Court cannot assume the powers of the appellate/revisional Court, nor this Court can act as trial Court, as it is not within the domain of this Court to inquire into the fact whether the evidence, so collected by the prosecution, is reliable or not as this function is solely of the trial Court. While holding so, the view of this Court is being guided by the decision of Hon'ble ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 11 apex Court in Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu & Another versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Another, (2019) 10 Scale 239.
Relevant paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment is .
reproduced as under:-
"15. In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it were a trial Court. The Court is only to be prima facie satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate materials and of documents on record, but it cannot appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.
16. The High Court should not, in exercise of jurisdiction under rt Section 482, embark upon an enquiry into whether the evidence is reliable or not, or whether on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the allegations are not sustainable, for this is the function of the trial Judge. This proposition finds support from the judgment of this Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. v. Mohd. Sharful Haque and Another"
12. At the time of deciding the petition, only prima facie case is to be seen and the truthfullness of the allegations are not to be seen. Reference, in this regard, can be made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar & Others versus Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330.
13. In view of the above, now this Court will proceed to discuss the grounds, which have been taken by the petitioner to quash the FIR in question.
14. As per petition, the relief of quashing has been sought on the following grounds:-
::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 12i) Evidence in support of the allegations levelled against the petitioner is bald, vague and unreliable.
ii) No specific date or time has been mentioned with regard to the alleged incidents and there is unexplained delay of five years.
.
iii) Bare reading of the evidence collected by the investigating agency, does not make out a prima-facie case.
iv) As per the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police, no case is made out.
of
v) Complaint of Smt. Vinatha Devi was found to be false in the departmental inquiry.
vi) Smt. Vinatha Devi, who has been cited by the prosecution as a witness had axe to grind against the petitioner, as she rt had already made a complaint against the petitioner.
vii) The documents Annexure P-3 to Annexure P-6, which were allegedly supplied to the investigating agency, have not been made part of the final report and;
viii) In the departmental inquiry, the allegations of Smt. Neelam, respondent No.2 were found to be false.
15. The petitioner, in support of the above submissions, has annexed the copy of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., as well as, statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the photocopy of the recommendations of the Committee constituted to look into the allegations levelled by respondent No.2 Neelam, photocopy of statement of respondent No.2 Neelam recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., proceedings of the inquiry on the written complaint of Smt. Vinatha Devi against petitioner Manjeet ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 13 Singh Saini and copy of civil suit filed by the petitioner against Vinatha Devi.
16. So far as the first ground qua the fact, that the .
evidence in support of the allegations is bald, vague and unreliable is concerned, at this stage, bare reading of the complaint, if makes out a case, then, powers under Section of 482 Cr.P.C cannot be used. In this case, specific allegations have been levelled by the complainant in her statement, rt recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C and also in the statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. No doubt, the veracity of those allegations will be judged by the learned trial Court after the completion of trial.
17. The fact that merely against one of the witnesses, the petitioner has filed the civil suit for damages, is not sufficient to say, at this stage, that the allegations against the petitioner are bald, vague and unreliable.
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Gourishetty Mahesh and others, (2010) 11 SCC 226, has held that reliability of the evidence is not to be considered at this stage. The relevant paragraphs 18 to 21 are reproduced as under:-
"18. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 14 enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge/Court. It is true that Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing .
process, other wise, it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time, Section 482 is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and brings about its closure without full-fledged enquiry.
19. Though High Court may exercise its power relating to of cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, the power should be exercised sparingly. For example, where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do rt not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused or allegations in the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence or do not disclose commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused or where there is express legal bar provided in any of the provisions of the Code or in any other enactment under which a criminal proceeding is initiated or sufficient material to show that the criminal proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused due to private and personal grudge, the High Court may step in.
20. Though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 are wide, however, such power requires care/caution in its exercise. The interference must be on sound principles and the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. We make it clear that if the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482.
21. In the case on hand, apart from specific allegations about the transportation of Jaggery for preparation of illicit distilled liquor, prosecution also placed reliance on laboratory analysis report which mentions that the transported Jaggery is fit for fermentation, producing alcohol unfit for consumption. In those circumstances, whether the raw material in existence would be sufficient for holding the accused persons concerned guilty or not has to be considered only at the time of trial. Further, at the time of framing the charge, it can be decided whether prima facie case has been made out showing the commission of offence and involvement of the charged persons. It is immaterial ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 15 whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence. That being so, the interference at the threshold quashing the FIR is to be exceptional and not like routine as ordered by the High Court in the present case. It is not a case where it can be said that the complaint did not disclose commission of an offence. The acceptability of the materials .
to fasten culpability on the accused persons is a matter of trial."
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojiro Angre and others (1988) 1 SCC 692, has prescribed the test for quashing of the criminal proceedings is at the initial stage. The relevant paragraph 7 of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
rt "7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."
20. In the present case, complainant (respondent No.2) has levelled the specific allegations. She has also made similar statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C before the competent Court of law. Even otherwise, it is the quality which matters and not the quantity. The police has recorded the statements of the witnesses, namely, Dr. Shatrughan ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 16 Singh, Meera, Dr. Chanchal Gupta, Daya Rani and Himani Thakur under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who have given contrary version that of the complainant. But, on this ground, no relief .
can be granted to the petitioner, as, the conviction can be made even on the sole statement of the witness, if inspires confidence. It is for the trial Court to evaluate the evidence of when, the witness will be examined before it.
21. As per documents submitted by the petitioner rt along-with the petition, one thing is clear that he has filed a suit for damages against Smt. Vinatha Devi and much has been pleaded that Smt. Vinatha Devi is an interested witness, but, the statement of the interested witness does not efface from the record, as, it is the duty of the Court to separate grain from the chaff.
22. So far as other ground, upon which, quashing has been sought is the fact that respondent No.2 has not mentioned the specific date or time, when the alleged incident had taken place and there is unexplained delay of five years. In the statement recorded, under Section 154 Cr.P.C, respondent No.2 has specifically stated that she joined the CRC on 14.03.2016 and from the year 2016, the accused persons are harassing her. In her statement, recorded under ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 17 Section 161 Cr.P.C, respondent No.2 has levelled the specific allegations and even in her statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, specific allegations have been levelled .
against the accused persons.
23. The FIR, in the present case, has been registered under Sections 354A and 355 IPC and Section 3(1) (w) (i) (ii), of 3(2) (va) of SC & ST Act. As per statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C, the complainant has alleged that rt whenever she is working on computer, then, Manjeet Singh Saini (petitioner) used to sit on her chair near her and thereafter, he directs her to work on computer. She has further alleged that whenever she was working on computer, petitioner used to hold her hand, used to put his hand on her back and used to touch her without her consent. All these allegations, prima-facie falls within sub Section (2) of Section 354A IPC, for which, the legislature, in its wisdom, has provided punishment, which may extend to three years, whereas, for the offence punishable under Section 355 IPC, the punishment has been provided, which may extend to two years. The offences under Section 3(1) (w) are punishable with imprisonment, for a term, which shall not be less than six months, but, which may extend to five years and with fine.
::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 1824. Although, in the complaint under Section 154 Cr.P.C, the complainant has got recorded that from the year 2016, accused Manjeet Singh, Sandeep Trivedi and others .
harassed her and consequently, she has resigned in the month of March, 2021, since, the punishment for the punishable under Section 3(1) (w) (i) (ii) of SC & ST Act is five of years, as such, the present complaint cannot be said to be barred by limitation, at this stage.
25. rt So far as the argument of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the complaint of Smt. Vinatha Devi was found to be false in the departmental inquiry is concerned, the effect of the said inquiry can only be considered if the same is explained to her. Without affording an opportunity to explain the fate of the inquiry, statement of Smt. Vinatha Devi, which is on the file in the shape of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, cannot be discarded. Even otherwise, as already held, it is the quality which matters and not the quantity.
26. The law has not prescribed any number of witnesses on the basis of which, conviction can be recorded.
If the statement of the sole witness, even he/she is ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 19 complainant, is having a ring of truth in it, conviction can be based.
27. So far as the other ground, upon which, relief of .
quashing has been sought is qua the fact that Annexure P-3 to Annexure P-6 were allegedly supplied to the I.O., but have not been made part of the final report are concerned, of Annexure P-3 is the final report on the complaint of Smt. Vinatha Devi against petitioner Manjeet Singh Saini. Learned rt Senior counsel for the petitioner cannot point out the relevancy of this document for the adjudication of the case, which has been instituted on the statement of respondent No.2 Neelam Kumari. Annexure P-4 is the inquiry report submitted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Mandi in the matter of Vinatha Devi. Annexure P-5 is the proceedings of inquiry into the written complaint of Smt. Vinatha Devi. Annexure P-6 is the copy of suit filed by the petitioner against Smt. Vinatha Devi for recovery of damages.
These documents, if taken into consideration, does not have any direct effect upon the case of respondent No.2 and at the most, these documents have some relevancy against Smt. Vinatha Devi, whose statement, under Section 161 Cr.P.C, has been recorded by the police.
::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 2028. So far as the argument of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner qua the fact that the allegations of Smt. Vinatha Devi were found to be false in the departmental .
inquiry are concerned, the same has no relevancy in the criminal proceedings. The FIR cannot be quashed merely on this ground.
of
29. So far as the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Diwaker Dev Sharma and others vs. Government rt Railway Police Station and another, Latest HLJ 2023 (HP) (1) 502 is concerned, from the statement of the complainant, as well as, supporting documents, it cannot be said that the continuation of proceedings in criminal case against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law.
30. So far as the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pepsi Foods Limited and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC 749 is concerned, with due respect to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the same in no way helps the case of the petitioner, as, the complainant has levelled specific allegations for the offence, for which, the police has registered the FIR in question, in this case. Moreover, from a bare reading of the complaint, as well as, the statement of respondent No.2, recorded under ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 21 Section 161 Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that no case is made out against the petitioner.
31. In this case, the police has registered a case under .
Section 3(1) (w) (i) (ii) of SC & ST Act. The complainant has alleged that accused persons, including the petitioner, used to say that she is from a lower caste, as such, they will remove of her from the job. Moreover, the offence alleged, in the present case, is under Section 3(1) (w) (i) (ii) of SC & ST Act, as rt such, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and another (2020) 10 SCC 710 does not help the case of the petitioner, as, the matter before it was with regard to offence under Section 3(1) (r) of SC & ST Act, which relates to intentional insult/intimidation with intent to humiliate member of SC/ST in any place, within public view.
32. Considering all these facts, prima facie, there is no occasion for this Court to allow the petition, as prayed for, as, whatsoever grounds, put forward, by the petitioner, in this case, are his probable defence and mere pleading those defences, is not sufficient, at this stage. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
33. Any of the observations made hereinabove shall not be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 22 case, as, these observations are confined only to the disposal of the present petition.
34. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand .
disposed of.
35. Record be sent back.
December 18, 2023 ( Virender Singh )
(naveen) Judge
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS