Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parmender Singh Rawat vs State Of Punjab And Another on 20 November, 2023
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148692
CRM-M-47745-2023 1
2023:PHHC:148692
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-47745-2023 (O&M)
Reserved on: 03.11.2023
Pronounced on: 20.11.2023
Parmender Singh Rawat ... Pe oner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab & another ...Respondent (s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:- Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate and
Mr. Chetan Mi*al, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Pawan Narang, Advocate and
Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate
for the pe oner(s).
Mr. Gaurav Garg Duriwala, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta-on Sec-ons 41 5.5.2023 Division No.3, 279, 337, 427 IPC and Sec on 3(x) & 4 of the District Police Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Commissionerate, (Preven on of Atroci es), Act, 1989, (Later on Ludhiana Sec ons 3(x) & 4 deleted and Sec on 3(s) of the SCSTPOA added).
1. Seeking quashing of the FIR, cap oned above, registered because the pe oner was driving the vehicle and another co-accused, Bhawna Gupta, a journalist, and one Mritunjay, a Cameraman, who were also si?ng in it, has come up before this Court under Sec on 482 CrPC by asser ng that the accident was not due to his fault and there is no averment in the FIR that he had used the alleged words, prohibited under Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Preven on of Atroci es), Act, 1989 a@er now termed as SCSTPOA.
2. The prosecu on's case is based on the statement made by one Gagan, which led to the registra on of the FIR cap oned above. The copy of FIR translated in English is annexed as Annexure P-1, and neither of the par es disputes its transla on. The contents of the FIR read as follows: -
1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 23-11-2023 00:34:48 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148692 CRM-M-47745-2023 2 2023:PHHC:148692 "Statement of Gagan wife of Rajinder Kumar resident of Balmiki Colony Ludhiana aged 50 years. Stated that I am resident of the said address and am a housewife. Today, on 05.05.2023 I alongwith Neelam Rani Resident of 991, Near Balmiki Mandir Chowk Division No. 3 and Sharda Resident of Ghaa Mohalla, Ludhiana were going to the inaugura on of the new Mohalla Clinic by Chief Minister Bhagwant Maan at Mohalla Harcharan Nagar and were ge?ng down from the e-Riksha near Shingaar Cinema crossing, and immediately upon ge?ng down, a car driver while driving carelessly hit me from one side and while I was trying to defend myself; my right hand was injured due to the impact of the vehicle and due to the impact of the vehicle my mobile phone brand Samsung Galaxy fell down from my hand and was broken. On reading the number of the vehicle I found it to be UP-16-CD-6327 of Innova make Color White. The driver of the vehicle started arguing with me and when I asked to the driver of the vehicle that why did you hit the vehicle into me and because of being hit by your vehicle, I have been injured and the phone of a poor has been broken. On this, alongwith the car driver, another man and a woman also came there and they alongwith the car driver started abusing me and the woman started saying "Tum Neech Jaa waley chamaar logon ka yahi kaam hai, tum log gaadi walon se paisa aithne ke liye kisi vi had tak gir sakte ho" and a@er saying this when I objected to it a lot of people gathered there and a@er a while your police party reached the spot. I came to know the name of the driver of the car as Parminder Singh Rawat, the name of the other person who argued as Mritunjay Kumar and the women who u*ered caste indica ve words as Bhawna.
That the driver of the said car while driving recklessly rammed the car into me and caused me injury and caused damage to my mobile and the car passenger Bhawna insulted me by publically using caste indica ve words against my caste and I may be provided jus ce by taking suitable ac on against them as per law. I have got recorded my statement with you in presence of my known Neelam Rani & Sharda, gone through, it is correct. Sd/- Gagan".
3. Pe oner's grievance is two-fold. Firstly, the pe oner had met the complainant for the first me in his life in a place he had visited for his job profile as a driver of the vehicle in ques on and how would he know the caste of the complainant? As such, there was no ques on of his knowing the complainant's caste, and even as per the FIR, the complainant did not a*ribute the caste words spoken by the pe oner. His next stand is that even if his vehicle had met with an accident, by no stretch of the imagina on, it can be presumed that the pe oner inten onally caused the accident, foreseeing that by such an accident, the person that would be hit would be belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. The Second grievance is that no case under the Motor Vehicles Act is made out.
2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 23-11-2023 00:34:49 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148692 CRM-M-47745-2023 3 2023:PHHC:148692
4. It would be appropriate to refer to the FIR to analyze the grievance described above. The allega ons as per the FIR are that on May 05, 2023, when the complainant/respondent No.2, along with her neighbors, had gone for the inaugura on of the new mohalla clinic, and when they were descending from an e-rickshaw, a car hit her which was being driven carelessly. In the process of saving her life, her right hand got injured, and even her mobile phone fell from her hand and broke. She pointed out the vehicle in ques on was an SUV Innova. As per FIR, a@er that, the vehicle's driver started arguing with her. When she ques oned him that why he hit her with his vehicle because of which she was injured and her phone was broken, the vehicle's driver and another man and woman who were in the vehicle came down and started abusing her. As per informant, the woman who was si?ng in Car, a*ributed words "Tum neech jaa waley chamaar logon ka yahi kaam hai, tum log gaadi walon se paise ainthne ke liye kisi vi had tak gir sakte ho". On hearing these words, the complainant objected, and many people gathered there, and in between, the police party reached the spot. She later stated that the person who had also argued with her, si?ng in the car, was named Mritunjay, and the other lady who had u*ered cas st words was named Bhawna.
5. Based on these allega ons, the police registered FIR, i.e., for driving any vehicle in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life punishable under Sec on 279 IPC, due to a rash and negligent act causing hurt to a woman and endangered personal safety offense punishable under Sec on 337 IPC and wrongfully commi*ed mischief by causing loss for more than Rs.50 punishable under Sec on 427 IPC. In addi on to that, FIR was registered under Sec ons 3(x) and Sec on 4 of SCSTPOA. It is relevant to men on here that insul ng a person belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by caste name in any place with public view is punishable under The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Preven on of Atroci es), Act, 1989 [SCSTPOA].
6. The complainant is opposing the pe on on the grounds that the pe oner has raised a disputed ques on of fact which cannot be gone into in a pe on under Sec on 482 CrPC for the reason that the truthfulness of the allega ons has to be ascertained and decided at the me of trial by leading evidence. It is further argued that this Court cannot conduct the mini trial while deciding the pe on under Sec on 482 CrPC. It is further stated that offences under SCSTPOA are heinous and cannot be quickly quashed. The respondents have also referred to judicial precedents in the reply, which are se*led principles of law and cannot be disputed.
7. The State has also filed a separate reply through the Assistant Commissioner of Police. The main objec on of the State is that the inves ga on is con nuing, and if this Court quashes the FIR, it can be throa ng the inves ga on.
8. I have heard counsel for the pe oner, complainant, and State and reviewed the record.
3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 23-11-2023 00:34:49 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148692 CRM-M-47745-2023 4 2023:PHHC:148692
9. It is undisputed that the pe oner was driving the vehicle carrying the two media personnel, and he was doing the role of a driver and nothing more than that. It is undisputed that the accident occurred suddenly, and the pe oner did not inten onally hit the vehicle, knowing the vic m's caste. Whether the accident occurred due to an error of judgment, rash or negligent driving, or the vic m's negligence, vehicle's fault or road condi ons is a ma*er of trial. Regarding quashing of FIR under Sec ons 279 & 337 IPC concerned, this can only be done by scru nizing the evidence by the trial court at the me of issuance of no ces of acquisi on, and if such no ces are issued, and the trial commences only at the me of apprecia on of evidence during the trial. In the exercise of powers vested under Sec on 482 CrPC, this court cannot entertain the disputed ques on of whether the accident occurred due to an error of judgment resul ng from rash and negligent driving or the complainant's fault. Consequently, the prayer regarding the quashing of FIR under Sec ons 279 IPC & 337 IPC cannot be entertained, and qua those sec ons, the quashing pe on cannot be entertained.
10. Now, another fundamental legal ques on that arises is whether FIR can be quashed in part?
11. In Lovely Salhotra v. State NCT of Delhi, [3]. ...The High Court was wrong in holding that the F.I.R. cannot be quashed in part and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellants - herein cannot be allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 - herein only on the ground that the inves ga on against co-accused is s ll pending...
12. In Hitesh Verma v. The State of U*arakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, a three- member bench of Supreme Court had quashed the Chargesheet in part, and held as follows, [24]. In view of the above facts, we find that the charges against the appellant under Sec on 3(1)(r) of the Act are not made out. Consequently, the charge-sheet to that extent is quashed. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
[25]. The FIR in respect of other offences will be tried by the competent Court in accordance with law along with the criminal case11, though separately ini ated, for the reason that it relates to interparty dispute and is in respect of same subject ma*er of property, despite of the fact that two different dates of the incident have been provided by the par es.
13. In the light of these judicial precedents, an FIR can be quashed even in part provided it can be legally quashed.
14. As far as the offence under Sec on 427 IPC regarding "Mischief causing damage to the amount of fi@y rupees" is concerned, it relates to the damage of a mobile phone that had fallen because of the impact of an accident. Sec on 425 IPC defines 'Mischief' 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 23-11-2023 00:34:49 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148692 CRM-M-47745-2023 5 2023:PHHC:148692 and uses the word inten on and states that whoever, with intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person, causes the destruc on of any property or any such change in any property or the situa on thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or u lity or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief."
15. It would be a travesty of jus ce to arrive at a finding of a prima facie case that the pe oner had caused impact with the vehicle with the inten on or knowledge that by causing an accident, the phone that the vic m might be carrying would fall, which in turn would cause a loss of more than Rs.50. Thus, by such an imagina on, the ingredients of mischief could not have been invoked against the pe oner. Even if all allega ons of causing damage to the phone are taken to be truthful, it will not cons tute any offence punishable under Sec on 427 IPC; as such, the FIR for an offence under Sec on 427 IPC is, as a result of this is quashed and set aside.
16. Now, coming to the second limb of arguments, the case of the pe oner about his being arraigned as accused for viola on of provisions of SCSTPOA is concerned, perusal of the FIR itself explicitly points out that words allegedly poin ng out towards caste were not a*ributed to the pe oner and his only role was that a@er the accident co-passengers had also come down and out of those, one female, Bhawna Gupta, allegedly use such words. In the en re reading of the FIR, it is not pointed out that the pe oner told the other accused to use such words. Merely because the pe oner was present with two other persons, out of whom one lady had allegedly used such words, the pe oner cannot be stated to have had any intent to use such language. Even if the en re set of allega ons in the FIR regarding the usage of words SCSTPOA are taken as gospel truth, and this cannot be a*ributed to the pe oner, and prosecu ng him in a special Court for the commission of such an offense would be total is-carriage of jus ce, which is something for which this Court has inherent jurisdic on to prevent.
17. In Asmathunnisa vs. State of A.P. and another, 2011 AIR (Supreme Court) 1905, Division Bench of Supreme Court, holds as under:-
[5]. The significant part of this complaint is that the offending words were admi*edly spoken by Mohd. Samiuddin, the husband of the appellant. He abused Sridevi's husband in filthy language by naming caste and said that "AA LAMBADODU", "let him come home today we will se*le the ma*er with him." At that me, admi*edly Sridevi's husband was not present. [8A] According to the complaint, no offence under the aforesaid sec on can be made out against the appellant because the ingriedients of the offence are not made out. In the complaint so called offending words were not even a*ributed to the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant merely accompanied her husband and the offending words were spoken by the husband appellant in this appeal by no stretch of imagina on can be held guilty of the offence under Sec on 3(1)(x) of the 1989 Act.
5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 23-11-2023 00:34:49 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148692 CRM-M-47745-2023 6 2023:PHHC:148692 [10]. The aforesaid paragraphs clearly mean that the words used are "in any place but within public view", which means that the public must view the person being insulted for which he must be present and no offence on the allega ons under the said sec on gets a*racted if the person is not present.
18. Consequently, the present FIR qua Sec ons 427 IPC and Sec on 3(x) & 4 and Sec on 3(s) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Preven on of Atroci es), Act, 1989, is as a result of this quashed and set aside. Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial qua Sec on 279/337 IPC or any other addi onal offence added while framing charges except the offences for which FIR quashed.
Pe--on allowed. All pending applica ons stand closed in tune with this judgment.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
November 20, 2023
anju rani
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148692
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 23-11-2023 00:34:49 :::