Allahabad High Court
Javed Akhtar vs State Of U.P.And Another on 23 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:31717 Reserved on : 07.02.2024 Delivered on : 23.02.2024 Court No. - 92 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 8=482 No. - 38861 of 2016 Applicant :- Javed Akhtar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Bahadur Singh, Prashant Vyas Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri S.B. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and Sri S.D. Pandey and Sri S.K. Chandraul, learned A.G.A.s for the State-O.P. No.1.
2. This is a case where a Professor had to pay a very heavy price for asking an Assistant Professor to take classes and teach properly. He was made an accused and had to face trial for at least eight years, and further had to face humiliation, stigma, for no fault of his own, and on the other hand, the complainant, by misusing the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as 'the S.C./S.T. Act'), had virtually threatened the other seniors from taking any action against her.
3. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant praying for quashing cognizance/summoning order dated 18.11.2016 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Allahabad on charge-sheet dated 8.10.2016 submitted under Section 354C, 504, 506 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act in Case Crime No.701 of 2016, Police Station-Colonelganj, District-Allahabad.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. The facts of the case in brief are that O.P. no.2 namely, Deep Shikha Sonkar was appointed as Assistant Professor in Department of Economics in University of Allahabad, who had joined in July, 2013. However, at the time of her appointment Professor Jagdish Narain was the Dean, Faculty of Arts and Professor Prahlad Kumar was the Head of Department. During the course of her teaching a number of complaints were made by the students against complainant/O.P. no.2 stating that she is not taking classes and whenever she goes to the class, she is unable to teach. After receiving various complaints, the then Head of Department conveyed his displeasure to her and orally directed her to go to the class well prepared and not to miss the classes.
5. This oral instruction/admonition given by the Head of Department, annoyed her a lot. Expressing her annoyance, O.P. no.2 filed multiple complaints as mentioned hereunder:
1st Complaint A complaint was filed on 14.01.2016 with Womens' Advisory Board 2nd Complaint Another complaint was filed on 19.01.2016 with Vice Chancellor 3rd Complaint And a third complaint was filed on 13.02.2016 with Committee for Complaints Against Sexual Harassment (hereinafter referred as 'CCASH') All the three complaints were filed against Professor Prahlad Kumar, the then Head, during his currency in the Office of Head of Department.(and not against the applicant)
6. As per the prevalent norms of Allahabad University, the Head of Department was made by rotation for two years. The tenure of Professor Prahlad Kumar as the Head of Department came to an end and in his place Professor Man Mohan Krishna took charge as the Head of Department on 16.2.2016.
7. On 23.02.2016, the then Dean, Faculty of Arts, Professor Jagdish Narain, to whom complaints were made by a number of students about competence of O.P. no.2/complainant as well as her absence from the classes, wrote an official letter to Head of Department (Professor Man Mohan Krishna) to take action against O.P. No.2 and Professor D.N. Oraon for their absence from the class. Over the leaf of the said letter, Professor Man Mohan Krishna marked the said letter to O.P. no.2 with the note, "To meet me to discuss the issue.", which annoyed/irked her extremely.
4th Complaint
8. O.P. no.2 yet made another complaint on 24.2.2016 against the Dean to Vice Chancellor mentioning wherein that she is being harassed because she belongs to Scheduled Caste Community.
5th Complaint
9. In addition to it, she also lodged a complaint against the Dean on the same day to the police alleging the same incident. However, this complaint lodged with the police was withdrawn by her after six days.
10. The complaints against Professor Prahlad Kumar and Professor Jagdish Narain were examined thoroughly by CCASH and it concluded the proceedings on 16.03.2016 with a finding that the allegations made is a heap of lie and the said report attained finality. The conclusion part of the report is reproduced below for ready reference :-
"Conclusion The Economics department comes out as suffering from the 'Othello Effect'. There are a lot of jealousies, under currents of motives, lies, misunderstandings. The complaint seems to have some truth but the truth has been covered with a heap of lies. The victim has reported the incidents almost after one year and a half to two years of their happening. She is confused about the date and time of the events. The complainant and her witnesses emerge contradictory. It cannot be said with surety that it was the defendant only who made the remarks, but nonetheless the Committee is of the view that few things have been said and there exists a situation of power matrix. She as a young unmarried girl new to the town and he is Head of the Department. The Committee finds that the charge of sexual harassment is not substantiated. But the defendant may be cautioned and warned to be more sensitive towards women. India is reeling under patriarchy for centuries leading to a mindset which is not very gender sensitive. Often it happens that, what men consider normal is perceived as a situation of threat by women. In this particular case this thought is resonating in the minds of all members of CCASH."
11. Since, Professor Man Mohan Krishna during his regime, kept receiving a lot of complaints from the students against O.P.no.2's incompetency in teaching as well as her conduct of often remaining absent from the classes, on 04.08.2016, in presence of Professor Javed Akhtar (applicant herein), Professor Prahlad Kumar and Professor Sunil Chaturvedi, he called O.P. No.2 through the peon in his office and asked her to be regular in the classes and to go in the classes with full preparation. This advice irked her so much that she left the Office showing great disregard to the Head of Department.
6th Complaint
12. On the same day i.e. 04.08.2016, she made a complaint to the Vice Chancellor during office time.
7th Complaint
13. On the same day at 7.20 P.M., O.P. no.2 lodged an FIR, which was registered as Case Crime No.701 of 2016 under Section 354C, 504, 506 IPC and under Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act.
14. The complaint made to the Vice Chancellor by O.P. no.2 was thoroughly examined by a five member Committee of CCASH and after taking evidence of the witnesses of O.P. no.2, CCASH vide its report dated 05.10.2016 concluded that the complaint is an attempt to malign the high reputation and impeccable image of the concerned Professors. The findings of the report dated 05.10.2016 is being quoted below :-
" Findings In the light of her failure to respond to the questionnare sent by the CCASH and the responses given by the eight members of the department to the queries by the CCASH, which ran contrary to the allegations made by Ms. Sonkar in her complaint. The committee is led to conclude:
That Ms. Sonkar has no evidence to substantiate her allegations.
That the reported incident has taken place in the room of the Head, which is open to all the persons who wish to meet the HOD. So the evidence of those present becomes very crucial in verifying and finding about the truth of the incident.
That Ms. Sonkar neither responded nor led any evidence.
All the persons examined by the CCASH have strongly denied the contents of the complaint.
That the said complaint by Ms. Sonkar is entirely frivolous. In fact her own conduct in the department, where she fails to cooperate with the Head and comply with his various orders reflects an attitude of insubordination and creates serious issues of defiance of authority.
In response to the question about the general behavior of these three professors all the persons who responded to the questionnaire have in substance written that the behaviour of these three Professors is courteous, cooperative, polite and very good. No previous incident of any misconduct or rude behavior of these three professors was brought to the notice of the CCASH except the earlier complaint by Ms. Sonkar against Professor Prahlad Kumar which was found to be frivolous and false.
It is pertinent to mention that as reported by the HOD Professor M.M. Krishna that soon after she left his room he received a call from mobile number 8423857510 by one Sri Rajesh Tripathi, subscriber of the said number using un-parliamentary language, and threatening him and later the said Sri Tripathi visited the department along with 4-5 unknown persons and threatened Professor Javed Akhtar and Professor Prahlad Kumar saying, " in case any harm comes to Ms. Sonkar the consequences will be dire...." This act and conduct of Ms. Sonkar was highly condemnable.
In the light of her such continuous subversive behavior and her inability to substantiate her allegations on the three named professors, the CCASH also concludes that her complaint is merely an attempt to malign the high reputation and impeccable image of the concerned Professors. Such frivolous complaints not only malign the reputation of the department in particular but also of the institution, the University of Allahabad at large."
15. Thereafter, the reports of the Committee against the sexual harassment of women dated 16.03.2016 and 5.10.2016 was put up before the Executive Council, who vide Resolution No.08/42 dated 16.12.2016 conferred its approval. The relevant portion of the resolution dated 16.12.2016 is quote below:-
"The Council unanimously accepted the CCASH Report. Some members also questioned as to why some action has not been recommended for bringing a case or disciplinary action against Deepshikha Sonker who has been levelling false and fictitious allegations against senior and reputed teachers of the Economics Department and university functionaries including then Head and such an act by the lady teacher is bringing disrepute to the Department and to the University. Honorable Vice-Chancellor on this informed the Council that as the present case is under consideration in the honorable High Court, it would not be proper to taken any decision till the case is finally decided there."
16. The Resolution of Executive Council was not challenged and has attained finality. The said resolution of the Executive Council was sent to Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj on 21.04.2017.
17. The relevant para of the allegations levelled by O.P. no.2 in the FIR against the applicant are as follows:
"Professor Javed Akhtar along with Professor Man Mohan Krishna and Professor Prahlad Kumar were putting pressure on her to withdraw the complaint, as well as they used to send unsocial element to her and also used to harass her in various ways."
18. Further, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 05.08.2016, against the present applicant as well as other accused she has made sweeping statement which was as follows:
"All three of them, stared her and kept her standing for an hour. They said that she belongs to Scheduled Caste and she can't do anything. She can not sit along with them and she would be beaten by chappal. She is not even worthy of talking with them. All the three of them told her, "I am your Head, I will not let you do the job and you will not be able to stay here". Prior to this, she had lodged an FIR in 2015, despite that, all the three of them had been harassing her and she is feeling unsecured. They always use filthy words against her and say that she is elusive, lodges false FIRs and her character is not good."
19. As per statement of O.P. no.2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 14.09.2016, the allegation against the present applicant was of saying, "had not you belonged to S.C., you would have not been appointed".
20. The impugned FIR was challenged in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.-19435 of 2016, wherein vide order dated 01.09.2016, arrest of the petitioner therein (present applicant) was stayed.
21. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 08.10.2016. The trial court took cognizance on 18.11.2016 and ordered for issuing summons, which were issued on 05.12.2016.
22. After filing of the charge-sheet, the aforesaid writ petition had become infructuous and was disposed of vide order dated 02.06.2017.
23. The applicant by means of present application has challenged the cognizance/summoning order dated 18.11.2016 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Allahabad on charge-sheet dated 8.10.2016 submitted under Section 354C, 504, 506 IPC and under Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act in Case Crime No.701 of 2016, Police Station-Colonelganj, District-Allahabad.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 1st Argument
24. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on Section 28 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013(hereinafter referred as 'the Act, 2013'). Section 28 of the aforesaid Act is reproduced below for ready reference :
"28. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force."
25. He further submitted that the complainant/O.P. no.2 had two remedies, one under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and another under the provisions of the Act, 2013. To buttress this argument, he has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. Ajay Kumar Agarwal1, wherein the Court, invoking the doctrine of election, has held that when two remedies are available for the same relief, the party at whose disposal such remedies are available, can make the choice to elect either of the remedies as long as the ambit and scope of the two remedies is not essentially different. Following the ratio of this case, the complainant/O.P. no.2 could have chosen to invoke the provisions of one of the Acts and she could not proceed simultaneously under the two Acts for the same offence.
2nd Argument
26. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that Section 354C of IPC under which the applicant had been charged with, is not attracted as necessary ingredients to attract the said section is completely missing in the entire material collected by the Investigating Officer. Section 354C of IPC is being quoted below for ready reference:
"354C. Voyeurism.-Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
27. He contended that a plain reading of Section 354C of IPC exhibits that the allegations levelled by the complainant against the applicant, in the FIR and in the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., do not fall under the ambit of this Section as there is no allegation of the applicant watching or taking her image in a private act, where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed or was disseminating such image.
3rd Argument
28. He further submitted that the allegations made against the applicant under Section 504 IPC is not made out as to attract the provisions of Section 504 IPC. The relevant provision of Section 504 IPC is quoted herein for ready reference:
"504. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
29. The necessary ingredients for invocation of Section 504 are-(a) intentional insult, (b) insult may be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend to know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation the ingredients of section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that the there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504.
30. To buttress this argument, he has placed reliance on paragraph 13 of a judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra and another2, which read as under :-
"Section 504 comprises of the following ingredients, viz., (a) intentional insult, (b) insult may be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend to know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation the ingredients of section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that the there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504."
31. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that applicant had been charged for the offence under Section 506 IPC, but the same is not attracted in the present case. Section 506 IPC is quoted hereunder for ready reference:
"506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.-Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.-And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
32. He further submitted that there are three ingredients to attract Section 506 IPC. Firstly, there must be an act of threatening another person. Secondly, of causing injury to the person's reputation; or property of the persons threatened or to the person in whom the "threatened person is interested and Thirdly, the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the persons threatened or it must be to do any act, which is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act, which he is legally entitled to do.
33. To buttress this argument, he has placed reliance on paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manik Taneja and another vs. State of Karnataka and another3, which reads as under :
"13. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation" as defined in Section 503 IPC is as under:-
"503. Criminal Intimidation.-Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that persons is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation."
14. A reading of the definition of "Criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.
15. In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of "Criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the minds of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on the Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of appellants posting a comment on the Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC."
34. He further submitted that Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act would not be attracted in the present case as the same is attracted only when section in schedule is made out. Since from the sections charged in the present case only Sections 354C and 506 IPC forms part of the schedule mentioned in the S.C./S.T. Act and in the present case, as per the alleged incident, no case is made out under these two sections, hence, the provisions of Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act will not be applicable in this case.
35. He further submitted that from the FIR, statements of the complainant under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and till submission of charge-sheet after collecting entire materials on record, the only allegation against the applicant is that he told O.P. no.2, "had not you been from S.C. category, you would not have been selected". Further, this was said within the four corners of the room. Assuming but not admitting, even the applicant would have said that, still no offence, under sections which he has been charged with, can be said to have been made out against him.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2
36. Per contra, Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for O.P. no.2 submitted that on 05.07.2013, complainant/O.P. no.2 was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the Economics Department in Allahabad University. Thereafter, on 05.01.2015, Professor Jagdish Narain, the then Head of Department, Economics had sent an academic report with regard to conduct and behaviour of newly appointed Assistant Professors in the department. In his report, the work of the complainant was found to be less satisfactory along with other newly appointed Professors. He further submitted that after the seminar, the accused (without naming the accused) tried to allure the complainant by extending different kinds of favour and unwarranted gestures (This fact has not been mentioned in the FIR or in the statements of the complainant recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and has been brought in the pleadings to fill up the lacunas, neither the name of the accused was ever taken for the allegation).
37. Sri Singh, learned counsel for O.P. no.2 further submitted on 04.08.2016, the complainant/O.P. no.2 was called in the chamber of Professor Prahlad Kumar, Head of Department, Economics, wherein the applicant was also sitting. He submitted that the applicant tried to humiliate the complainant by saying that "hadn't she belonged to S.C. community, she would not have been selected".
38. He further submitted that the statements of the complainant recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are in full corroboration with the FIR. The statements of independent witnesses were also recorded. However, they were not present inside the chamber, they were not aware of the incident which took place inside the chamber. They only corroborated the fact that the complainant went inside the chamber of Head of Department, Economics. After conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted, upon which the concerned Court has taken cognizance and there is no illegality or impropriety in the procedure adopted by the Court below.
39. In reply to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant in respect of Section 28 of the Act, 2013, learned counsel for O.P. no.2 submitted that both the proceedings are parallel proceedings and they can run simultaneously. He further submitted that the language of Section 28 of the Act, 2013 is very clear, which says that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to any other proceedings.
40. In reply to the argument that Section 354C of IPC is not made out against the applicant, Sri Singh submitted that on conjoint reading of FIR and the statements of the complainant recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., offence under Section 354C of IPC is clearly made out against the applicant. He further submitted that as per the allegations in the FIR, offence under Sections 504 and 506 IPC is also made out against the applicant.
41. Sri Singh further submitted that there are catena of decisions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court observing that inherent powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly used by the High Courts and this is not a case, which calls for interference by this Court, the inherent powers given under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
CONCLUSION
42. Before adverting to the merits of the matter, this Court would like to see whether the allegations made in the FIR against the applicant and the statements given by the complainant when read together, discloses the commission of offence or whether prima facie no case is made out against the applicant.
43. However, in the charge-sheet the applicant was charged under Section 354C, 504, 506 IPC and under Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act.
44. The allegation levelled against the present applicant in the FIR was as under:
"Professor Javed Akhtar along with Professor Man Mohan Krishna and Professor Prahlad Kumar were putting pressure on her to withdraw the complaint, as well as they used to send unsocial element to her and also used to harass her in various ways."
45. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. against the applicant as well as others she has only stated as follows:
"All three of them, stared her and kept her standing for an hour. They said that she belongs to Scheduled Caste and she can't do anything. She can not sit along with them and she would be beaten by chappal. She is not even worthy of talking with them. All the three of them told her, "I am your Head, I will not let you do the job and you will not be able to stay here". Prior to this, she had lodged an FIR in 2015, despite this, all the three of them had been harassing her and she is feeling unsecured. They always use filthy words against her and say that she is elusive, lodges false FIRs and her character is not good."
46. Further in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. against the applicant she only stated as follows:
"Professor Javed said that if she hadn't been a S.C., she would not have been selected."
47. From the bare perusal of the contents of the FIR, and the statements under Section 161 and 164 CrP.C., it is quite apparent that there is no such allegation against the applicant that calls for invoking of Section 354C of IPC against him. The ingredients of Section 354C of IPC of voyeurism is only applicable if an accused captures the image of a woman engaging in private act, in circumstances where she would usually have the expectations of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person. In this case, the allegations levelled against the applicant does not fall within the category of the offence and hence, no offence is made out against him under Section 354C of IPC.
48. Further, the applicant had been charged under Section 504 of IPC. The ingredients of Section 504 of IPC are (a) intentional insult, (b) insult may be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend to know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. In the allegations levelled in this FIR supported by the statements of O.P. no.2 under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the insult alleged is not of a degree that would provoke a person to break public peace or to commit any other offence, and hence, the ingredients of Section 504 of IPC are not satisfied and the same offence could not have been levelled against the applicant.
49. Further, the applicant had been charged under Section 506 IPC. As per the ingredients of Section 506 IPC, which are firstly, there must be an act of threatening another person; secondly, of causing injury to the person's reputation; or property of the persons threatened or to the person in whom the "threatened person is interested; and thirdly, the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the persons threatened or it must be to do any act, which is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act, which he is legally entitled to do. In this case, the allegations levelled in the FIR and the statements of the complainant under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., prima facie does not fall in the ambit of criminal intimidation.
50. Similarly, the offence under Section 506 of IPC is not said to be made out as there is no criminal intimidation done by the applicant, even if the contents of the FIR and the statements of complainant/O.P. no.2 under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are taken as a gospel truth, still, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicant.
51. Even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken to be true and accepted in its entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence against the applicant. Further, a bare perusal of the allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR as well as the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. do not disclose commission of offence as suggested by the prosecution and no case is made out against the applicant. The entire criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafides and the same has been carried out just to wreak vengeance against the Head of Department, who had asked her to carry out her duties diligently. The entire proceedings initiated by her was with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance with a view to spite the applicant for the personal grudge, which she had against him.
52. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others4 has laid down the guidelines under which the High Court should exercise the inherent powers granted under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Paragraph 102 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below:-
"102. 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 Curt in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we given 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 within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(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 FIR 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 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 Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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."
53. The instant case is squarely covered by Guidelines (1), (3) and (7) of Bhajan Lal's case(supra). The complainant, whenever she had been admonished by her seniors, she would go and file complaints in all possible forums to wreak vengeance with ulterior motive. Further the plain reading of the FIR and the statements of the complainant under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. clearly shows that the allegations levelled against the applicant, does not comes under the ambit of Sections 354C, 504 and 506 IPC. Since, the offences does not fall within the ambit of these sections, in the result Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act is also not attracted in the instant case as to attract Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act, offences under Sections 354C and 506 IPC are to be made out.
54. Apparently, O.P. no.2 was in habit of making complaints to all possible authorities. It is hard to believe that all the three Professors, who took over as the Head of Department, had personal grudge against her and are harassing her. Which Head of Department in his senses would do that, specially when it is known to everyone that O.P. no.2 is in a habit of lodging complaints, and she will not even think twice before using the S.C./S.T. Act as a weapon to enmesh them in criminal cases.
55. If such kind of activities are not nipped in the bud, it will set a precedent where other members of the S.C. or the S.T. community will open start insubordination and the Head of Department will not be in a position to do anything, and if any warning is given to them; cases under the S.C./S.T. Act will be foisted against them.
56. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, this is a fit case to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant/O.P. no.2 against the present applicant.
57. The S.C./S.T. Act has been enacted with the objective that the underprivileged need to be protected against any atrocities to give effect to the constitutional ideals. At the same time, the said Act cannot be converted into a charter for exploitation or oppression by any unscrupulous person or by police for extraneous reasons against other citizens as has been found on several occasions. Any harassment of an innocent citizen, irrespective of caste or religion, is against the guarantee of the Constitution. This Court must enforce such a guarantee. Law should not result in caste hatred. The Preamble to the Constitution, which is the guiding star for interpretation, incorporates the values of liberty, equality and fraternity. This Court is not expected to adopt a passive or negative role and remain bystander or a spectator if violation of rights is observed. It is necessary to fashion new tools and strategies so as to check injustice and violation of fundamental rights. No procedural technicality can stand in the way of enforcement of fundamental right.
58. The instant case is a classic case where a subordinate Professor, whenever had been asked to teach properly and to go well prepared in the classes, she would go and file complaint against the Head of Department. The entire complaint filed by her is nothing but a pure abuse of process of law and misuse of the provisions of the S.C./S.T. Act.
59. The menace of filing false and frivolous cases under the S.C./S.T. Act is writ large. Various High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken very strict view of the same. This menace has been well considered by various High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
60. Madras High Court in the matter of Jones vs. State5 has observed as follows:
"This Court recently has brought to light the misuse of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against people of other community. This is another example of misuse of the Act. The purpose of bringing SC & ST Act is to put down the atrocities committed on the members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The law enforcing authorities must bear in mind that it cannot be misused to settle other disputes between the parties, which is alien to the provisions contemplated under the Act. An Act enacted for laudable purpose can also become unreasonable, when it is exercised overzealously by the enforcing authorities for extraneous reasons. It is for the authorities to guard against such misuse of power conferred on them."
61. Gujarat High Court in Dr. N.T. Desai vs. State of Gujarat6 has held as follows :
"................ Bearing in mind this most embarrassing and excruciating situation created by the complainant when, this Court as a Constitutional functionary is duty bound to zealously protect the liberty of citizen, should it be helplessly watching and passively surrendering itself to sometimes prima facie ex-facie malicious complaint............."
62. Dealing with the same issue, the Gujarat High Court in Dhiren Prafulbhai Shah versus State of Gujarat7 has observed as under:
"The matter in hand is one another example of misuse of the Act. As observed by me earlier, the purpose of bringing SC and ST Act is to put-down the atrocities committed on the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The law enforcing authorities must bear in mind that it cannot be misused to settle other disputes between the parties like the case one in hand, which is alien to the provisions contemplated under the laudable Act. An Act enacted for laudable purpose can also become unreasonable, when it is exercised over-zealously by the enforcing authorities for extraneous reasons. It is for the authorities to guard against such misuse of power conferred on them.
49. Passing mechanically orders by the Court of Magistrates in complaint and/or registration of the F.I.R. at the Police Station, which do not have any criminal element, causes great hardships, humiliation, inconvenience and harassment to the citizens. For no reasons the reputation of the citizen is put to stake as immediately after the said orders are passed, innocent citizens are turned as accused. .................."
63. Bombay High Court in Sharad versus State of Maharashtra8 has observed as under :
"12. We hasten to add that such type of complaints for rampant misuse of the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are largely being filed particularly against Public Servants/quasi judicial/judicial officers with oblique motive for satisfaction of vested interests........"
64. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra9 has held as under :
"72. .......The underprivileged need to be protected against any atrocities to give effect to the constitutional ideals. The Atrocities Act has been enacted with this objective. At the same time, the said Act cannot be converted into a charter for exploitation or oppression by any scrupulous person or by police for extraneous reasons against other citizens as has been found on several occasions in decisions referred to above. Any harassment of an innocent, irrespective of case or religion, is against the guarantee of the Constitution. This Court must enforce such a guarantee . Law should not result in caste hatred......."
65. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts had time and again dealt with problems where the litigant/complainant having filed false, frivolous and vexatious litigation to wreak vengeance and those have come out heavily to curb the serious problem.
66. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. BuddhiKota Subbarao vs. K. Parasarn10 has criticized the practice of frivolous petitions. The Supreme Court observed as under:
"No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived frivolous petition."
67. There are other instances where the Supreme Court had imposed exemplary costs, on frivolous and malicious litigations;Sivamoorthy vs. University of Madras11 and State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh12.
68. In this case, there is pure abuse of process of law where the complainant, just to wreak the personal vengeance against the Head of Department, had tried to implicate him and his colleagues by filing false and frivolous cases. Whenever the Seniors/Head of Department/Professors asked her to teach properly and to take classes regularly, she would file a complaint against them. This is not one of the first case which happened. The complainant, who is a well educated lady, knows the provisions of law very well and she had been abusing the provisions of law for personal gain. The complaint filed by the complainant was nothing but a pure abuse of process of law.
69. Because of the filing of frivolous cases, the reputation and public image of the applicant and his colleagues, who are Professors and people with high morals and reputation, had been tarnished. They had to run from pillar to post, from Police Station to Court to save themselves. Evidently, this was false and frivolous case filed against the applicant only to wreak personal vengeance. Such kind of vexatious proceedings should not be allowed to continue and if anybody engages in doing so, such activities have to curbed down. This is a perfect case where exemplary cost should be imposed on the complainant/O.P. no.2. The loss of reputation, public image and the financial loss caused to the applicant are far much more, but as a token a cost of Rs.5 lacs is imposed on O.P. no.2 for abusing the process of law by filing frivolous cases only for personal vengeance and personal gains. This amount should be given to the applicant forthwith after making deduction from the salary of O.P. no.2 as well as other benefits given by her employer.
70. Prima facie, on bare perusal of the FIR, the statements of O.P. no.2 under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., no offence for which the applicant has been charged, is made out.
71. This is a case where the Court if does not interferes and exercises the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it will fail in its duty. In exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the instant application is allowed and cognizance/summoning order dated 18.11.2016 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act and the entire criminal proceedings of Case Crime No.701 of 2016, Police Station-Colonelganj, District-Allahabad, so far it relates to the present applicant, are hereby quashed.
72. With the aforesaid observations, the instant application stands allowed.
Order date : 23.02.2024 Manish Himwan