Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yogesh Gupta vs Pahlad Singh on 21 December, 2016
Author: S.K.Awasthi
Bench: S.K.Awasthi
-( 1 )- CRR No.1181/2015
5HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH
BEFORE JUSTICE S.K.AWASTHI
Criminal Revision No.1181/2015
Yogesh Gupta
Versus
Prahlad Singh
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N.K.Gupta, Senior Advocate with Shri Pooran
Kulshrestha and Shri S.D.Singh, counsel for the
applicant.
Shri R.K.Awasthi, Public Prosecutor for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(21. 12.2016) Applicant Yogesh Gupta has filed this revision application under Sections 397, 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity, the 'CrPC') against the order dated 24.8.2015 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Gwalior in Special Sessions Trial No.105/2015, whereby the charge under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Special Act') has been framed.
(2) Brief facts of the case are that on 28.8.2006, complainant Prahlad Singh Mahor has lodged a report that on 28.8.2006 he went to the Office of the accused Yogesh Gupta for obtaining the scholarship of his children where Yogesh Gupta told that the certificates produced by Prahlad Singh are forged and, therefore, his children are not entitled for the scholarship. When complainant -( 2 )- CRR No.1181/2015 again prayed for scholarship, Yogesh Gupta started abusing him and he gave him beating by kicks and fists and thereafter he kicked him out abusing in the name of caste. The matter was reported to the Police Station AJK, Morena but the police did not register any case, then he filed private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena, who has taken cognizance against the applicant under Sections 294, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act and thereafter committed the case to the Special Court.
(3) The trial Court framed the charge under Section 3 (1) (x) of Special Act along with Sections 294, 323, 506 of IPC. Being aggrieved with the charge framed under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Special Act, this revision petition has been filed.
(4) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned trial Court has committed an error in framing the charge under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Special Act. There is no material on record for framing the charge against the applicant for the aforesaid offence. He prays that the aforesaid charge be quashed.
(5) Learned Public Prosecutor for the State supported the impugned order.
(6) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per prosecution case, the incident has taken place in the office of the applicant and place of incident does not fall within the public view. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of Kavindra Nath Thakur vs. State of MP, 2009 (1) MPLJ 604; Asmathunnisa vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011) 11 SCC 259; and, Banshilal & others vs. State of MP, -( 3 )- CRR No.1181/2015 2016 ILR (MP) 1198.
(7) I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the documents on record. (8) As per the definition of offence under Section 3(1)
(x) of the Special Act, the offence must be committed with intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in any place within public view. The complainant on the strength of statement recorded under Section 200 CrPC, submitted that when the incident took place, he was in the office of applicant Yogesh Gupta. Witnesses Mukesh Mahore and Niranjan Singh have also corroborated the statement of the complainant.
(9) From the statement of the complainant and his witnesses it appears that the incident occurred in the office room of the applicant. As per the allegation made in the complaint, witnesses Mukesh Mahor and Niranjan Singh were present at the time of incident, therefore, it cannot be said that there was no public in the chamber except the complainant and it was not within the public view. The case is registered on private complaint, therefore, site map is not available on record. From the statements of Mukesh Mahor and Niranjan Singh, it appears that other village persons were present along with them at the time of incident.
(10) In the cases of Kavindra Nath Thakur and Asmathunnisa (supra), the incident took place in the house of appellant therein and no evidence was adduced as to how the place of occurrence was within the public view, therefore, the essential element to prove the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act is -( 4 )- CRR No.1181/2015 missing in the said cases and apart from it, in both the cases challenge was made to conviction of the appellant but in the case in hand, the applicant has come up before this Court against framing of charge. In the circumstances, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant in Kavindra Nath Thakur and Asmathunnisa (supra) is distinguishable on facts. (11) Similarly, in the case of Banshilal (supra), the incident took place in the agricultural field and as per prosecution story, there was no other person available at the place of occurrence except the complainant, therefore, in the said case it was held that the ingredients are not fulfilled for framing of charge under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Special Act. Hence, the said case is of no help to the applicant.
(12) The question as to whether the office of applicant comes within the public view, can be decided after recording evidence of the witnesses but at this stage it can be observed that even if a remark is made inside the office but if some members of public are there then also it would be an offence since it has happened within the public view.
(13) In case of Y. Vasudeva Rao and another vs. State of A.P., reported in 2005 CriLJ 3774, wherein in para 16, the Andhra Pradesh High Court while dealing with Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act in a case bearing Criminal Petition No.6099 of 2004, has held as under:-
"Therefore, the phrase 'in a place within the public view' may be taken as a place where ordinarily the public visit for some -( 5 )- CRR No.1181/2015 purpose or other than with uninterrupted regularity though not continuously. Any place where a Government office is located, any market, a place of public entertainment and the like, where people are expected to go and are invited is a place 'within the public view.' An office or an office room where the head of the office sits is also a place within the public view but the private ante chamber of such officer cannot be treated as a place within the public view because except the personal servants of the officer, nobody can enter the private chambers. Similarly, an officer's house is not a place within the public view. If a person opens any shop -- be it for selling services or be it for selling feed for prawn culture; opens such a shop with an implied invitation to the public to visit the shop for purchasing the feed sold, such a shop must be given a public character and is certainly a place within public view."
(14) In case of Swaran Singh and others vs. State through Standing Counsel and another, reported in 2009 (1) MPLJ 503 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :-
"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."
(15) In view of the abovesaid enunciation of law, it cannot be said that the essential ingredient required for constitution of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act is not present in the -( 6 )- CRR No.1181/2015 instant case. Therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court at this stage. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
(S.K.Awasthi) Judge Yog