Delhi High Court
Shri D.P. Vats vs State And Ors. on 15 May, 2002
Equivalent citations: 99(2003)DLT167, 2002(64)DRJ29
JUDGMENT Khan, J.
1. One ministerial visit has bred registration of two rival FIRs -FIR No. 677/01 Under Section 186/353/34 IPC lodged by petitioner and rival FIR No. 678/01 under Section 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 r/w Section 323 and 341 IPC filed against him. Petitioners wants completion of investigation in the first FIR and quashing of the second one and that is how this writ petition.
2. It all happened on 4.6.2001 when Health Minister A.K. Walia visited Sultan Puri Area. Petitioner was in attendance and so were some political activists including the local MLA Sushila and her husband Ex-MLA Jai Kishan. There are two versions to the incident and hence two FIRs. Petitioner's version is that when the MLA and her husband asked him about his plans for removing encroachments from MCD parks, he told them that he was determined to so they got infuriated and they incited their supporters who assaulted him and beat him up. He was later rescued by his staff and got away with some injuries. For this he lodged FIR No. 677/01 at PS Sultan Puri and on learning this, local MLA and her husband falsely implicated him in two FIRs including FIR No. 678/01 Under Section 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 r/w Sections 323 and 341 IPC as a counter blast.
3. The rival version set up in FIR No. 678/01 is that while the Minister was listening to the narration of performance of Horticulture Department, petitioner became furious and started abusing local residents and said "CHUDE CHAMARON TUMHE MAAR DUNGA MAIN TUMSE NAHIN DARTA". He thereafter assaulted a local worker Babu Lal Khanna and gave him elbow blows. He then manhandled some women workers - Bhan Devi, Vimla Devi, Kamlesh, etc., snatched clothes of some of them and pulled the saari of one Kamlesh and tried to molest her and threatened local workers.
4. Petitioner challenges this FIR and attacks it on various grounds. According to him, if the allegations in this FIR were to be taken o the face value, these would not constitute offence Under Section 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act. The allegations were otherwise inherently improbable as no prudent public servant would indulge in such a behavior in the presence of his superior and the Minister. The FIR is said to be a counter blast and revengeful action against petitioner who claims to have transferred some of the Maalis/workers, who were the supporters of the MLA and her husband in compliance of the orders of this court in PIL entitled B.L. Wadhera v. Union. The challenge is also thrown to the vires of Section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act which was not, however, pressed in service by petitioner's counsel.
5. The power of the High Court to quash an FIR/criminal proceedings in certain circumstances is undisputed. The court enjoys both inherent and writ power to quash a complaint/FIR and even a summoning order and the on-going criminal proceedings where it felt satisfied that uncontroverter allegations made in the complaint/FIR and supporting material gathered at investigation, even when taken on face value, did not make out or constitute the alleged offence or that the action was tainted by malafides, personal grudge, vengeance or was frivolous and vexatious tantamounting to abuse of process of court.
6. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. , the Suprme Court went a step further in holding that investigation and court process could not be allowed to be used for oblique purposes and that the court would be within its bounds to quash the proceedings where chances of seeking conviction appeared to be bleak. The court eventually crystallised the position in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal laying down some illustrative guidelines of which the relevant ones are extracted as under:-
"(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).....
(3).....
(4).....
(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 sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6).....
(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 or personal grude."
7. Going by all this, all that remained to be seen was whether the uncontroverter allegations made in FIR No.687/01, even if taken on face value, would constitute the alleged offence Under Section 3 of SC/St (POA) Act or for that matter IPC.
8. Section 3 enlists various actions as offence of atrocities and provides punishment for these. Though the FIR in question does not specify anyone of the actions covered by various sub-sections, it could at best be assumed that the allegations may proximate to Sub-sections (1)(x) and (1)(xi) of the Act. First sub-section makes it an offence, if a non-SC/ST person intentially insults or intimidates with the intent to humiliate a member of SC/ST in any place within 'public view', punishable with minimum six months imprisonment which may extend to five years with fine. Similarly, Sub-section (xi) makes it an offence if a non-SC/ST person assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to SC/St with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty. Relevant sub-sections read thus:-
"3. Punishments for offence of atrocities--
(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--
(i) xxxxx
(ii) xxxxx
(iii)xxxxx
(iv) xxxxx
(v) xxxxx
(vi) xxxxx
(vii) xxxxx
(viii) xxxxx
(ix) xxxxx
(x) intentionally insults of intimidates with intent or humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
(xi) assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;"
9. A plain reading of the two sub-sections brings out the following ingredients which are common to these in the present context:-
(a) A person making the alleged derogatory utterance must know that the person whom he was intentionally insulting, intimating with intent to humiliate him was a member of SC/ST.
(b) Such intentional insult, intimation or humiliation must be directed against and made to a member of SC/ST and for being member of SC/ST.
(C) The utterance must be made at any place within "public view".
10. In the present case, we are concerned with the first two ingredients and it emerges there from that a case would fall under the first sub-section only when the person making the derogatory utterance knows that the person whom he was intentionally insulting or intimidating or humiliating in the name of the caste was a member of SC or ST. If he had no knowledge of his caste status, the offence under Sub-section (1)(x) would not be constituted. Similarly if his utterance was not directed against a member of SC/ST in contradistinction to a group of members of SC/ST or the community as a whole, it would not again make out an offence under Sub-section (1)(x). The word "a member" occurring in the provision assumes crucial importance in this context and leaves no scope for doubt that it must be directed against the individual member and not against a group of members or the crowd or the public in general though these may comprise of SC/ST. If it is made in generalised terms against all and sundry and is not individual specific in the name of caste, it would not make out an offence under the first sub-section, the rationale being that intensional insult, intimidation and humiliation made in the name of case was liable to be caused to a person and in this case to an individual member of SC/ST and not to a group of members or public in general.
11. The second Sub-section (xi) also requires that if a non-SC/ST member assaults or uses force to any women belonging to SC/ST with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty, it would amount to an offence of atrocity. Here also, the person assaulting and using force must know that the woman against whom he was doing belonged to SC/ST. If he did not know that the woman belonged to SC/ST, the offence under Sub-section (1)(XI) would not be attracted.
12. That being so, we hold that derogatory utterance made in generalised terms in a public gathering, even in the name of caste would not attract an offence Under Section 3(1)(x) unless it was directed against an individual member of the caste/Tribe and the person making it knew that the victim belonged to SC/ST. For Sub-section (xi) also, it was an essential requirement that the person using force or assaulting a women of SC/ST must know that she belonged to that caste/Tribe.
13. It does not, therefore, appear to us that uncontroverter allegations contained in FIR No. 678/01, even if taken on face value, would attract an offence under Sub-sections (1)(x) or (1)(xi) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. This is so because petitioner had made the utterance "CHUDE CHAMARON TUMHE MAAR DUNGA MAIN TUMSE NAHIN DARTA" in generalised terms. It was not directed against any particular member of SC/ST to attract the offence Under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Nor was it shown or known whether he knew anyone in the group or crowd to be a member of SC or ST to whom the utterance could be linked. The same holds true of the alleged offence under the other sub-section. The allegations in the FIR nowhere disclose that petitioner had assaulted or used force against any woman in the gathering whom he knew to be belonging to SC/ST. That is not to suggest that allegations made in the FIR had to state all the ingredients of the offence. But the allegations were required to lay at least the factual foundation for attracting the offence under Section 3(1)(x) and (XI) which is lacking in the present case.
14. But all this would not hold good for other offence Under Section 323 and 341 IPC in which investigating agency has already recorded statements Under Section 161 supporting the allegations made in the FIR. It would not be, therefore, appropriate for us to interfere at this stage even though a view was possible that the action could have been prompted by ulterior motive or was tainted by malafide.
15. The petition is accordingly allowed partly and FIR No. 678/01 registered at PS Sultan Puri is quashed Under Section 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act. It shall, however, survive in respect of other alleged offences and it shall be open to petitioner to seek appropriate relief in respect of these from the Trial Magistrate.
16. At this stage, it was noticed that investigation in petitioner's FIR No. 677/01 had proceeded at snail's pace. State Counsel informs that matter had been referred to the petitioner's superior authority for some sanctions/orders. That being so, the concerned authority is directed to pass appropriate orders in the matter within one month from receipt of this order and SHO PS Sultan Puri is directed to take necessary follows-up action thereafter under law with intimation to petitioner.