Punjab-Haryana High Court
Swami Raghva Nand vs Bedi And Another on 13 January, 2013
Criminal Misc. No. M-42637 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-42637 of 2013 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : January 13, 2014
Swami Raghva Nand ...Petitioner
Versus
Bedi and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL
Present : Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.
***
1. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes
M.JEYAPAUL, J.
C.M. No. 51005 of 2013 Exemption is granted from filing the certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-8.
The application is accordingly allowed.
Criminal Misc. No. M-42637 of 2013
1. The first respondent Bedi filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate alleging commission of offences under Sections 427, 435, 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (For the sake of brevity referred Singh Parvinder 2014.01.22 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-42637 of 2013 2 herein below as S.C. and S.T. Act).
2. The learned Judicial Magistrate having examined the complainant and three other witnesses on his side and having marked Ex. C1 to C3 on the side of the complainant found that a prima facie case was made out as against the accused. The first accused Baba Raghva Nand who is the petitioner herein was summoned under Section 3 of the S.C. and S.T. Act and also under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. As summons were issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate as against the petitioner as well, the petitioner preferred a Revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Jind who chose to dismiss the Revision having found that the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly issued summons as against the petitioner as well and that there was no patent illegality committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner would vehemently submit that the complainant as such did not disclose the ingredients which would constitute the offence under Section 3 of the S.C. and S.T. Act. He would further submit referring to the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this court that there was no specific averment in the complaint that the petitioner herein belonged to a different community from that of Scheduled Caste community. Further, it is his submission that no offfence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code was made out as against the petitioner.
4. The trial court has found that the complainant has Singh Parvinder 2014.01.22 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-42637 of 2013 3 established prima facie case under Section 3 of the S.C. and S.T. Act and also under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code as against the petitioner based on the pre summoning evidence adduced by the complainant. In fact the learned Judicial Magistrate had an occasion to thoroughly advert to the pre summoning evidence of CW1 Bedi, CW2 Jagbir Singh, CW3 Krishan Kumar and CW4 EHC Ram Kumar and the documents Ex. C1 to C3 marked on his side to come to a conclusion that a prima facie case was made out as against the petitioner as well not only under Section 3 of the S.C. and S.T. Act but also under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge also had thoroughly adverted to the entire evidence and documents produced by the complainant to test whether the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate suffered from illegality or perversity. Ultimately the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Revision was liable to be dismissed.
5. Apart from the allegation that castiest remarks were made by the petitioner as against the complainant, there is a serious allegation made by the complainant that the crops of the complainant had been completely burnt with the help of inflammable spray. Such an allegation is attracted by the penal provision contemplated under Section 3 (2) (iii) of the S.C. and S.T. Act. That apart the complainant has let in pre summoning evidence to support his original version in the complaint that he was criminally intimidated by the petitioner herein. In my considered view, as rightly held by the courts below, the complainant has established a prima facie case not only under Singh Parvinder 2014.01.22 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-42637 of 2013 4 Section 3 of the S.C. and S.T. Act but also under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gorige Pentaiah versus State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2008 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 171 wherein it has been held as follows:-
"In the instant case, the allegation of respondent No.3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.5.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1) (x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused- appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No.3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent no.3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law."
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also Singh Parvinder 2014.01.22 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-42637 of 2013 5 referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asmathunnisa versus State of Andhra Pradesh and another 2011 AIR (SC) 1905 wherein the earlier decision cited above was followed.
8. This court in Dr. Onkar Chander Jagpal and another versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and another 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 931 held as follows:-
"What cannot possibly be disputed here is that in the instant case, it is no where mentioned in the complaint, which formed the basis of FIR (Annexure P1) that the petitioners-accused are not the members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, they knew that the complainant was a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, they intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate her (member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe) and at a place within public view. Not only that, the complaint/FIR should disclose the caste of the offenders alone, it should disclose that the petitioners-accused were aware about the caste of the complainant as well."
9. The above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above were followed in the above judgment of our High Court.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa and another versus Saroj Kumar Sahoo 2006 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 324 has held as follows:-
Singh Parvinder 2014.01.22 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-42637 of 2013 6
"While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it was a trial Court. Even when charge is framed at that stage, the Court has to only prima facie be satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate material and documents on records but it cannot appreciate evidence. The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused."
11. In S. Sudershan Reddy and others versus State of Andhra Pradesh 2006 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 764 it has been held as follows:-
"It is well settled that FIR is not an encyclopedia of the facts concerning the crime merely because of minutest details of occurrence were not mentioned in the FIR the same cannot make the prosecution case doubtful. It is not necessary that minutest details should be stated in the FIR. It is sufficient if a broad picture is presented and the FIR contains the broad features."
12. The three judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale versus State of Maharashtra and ors. 2009 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 86 has held as follows:-
"It needs no reiteration that the FIR is not expected to be Singh Parvinder 2014.01.22 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-42637 of 2013 7 an encyclopedia. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant whether the accused belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe can be gone into when the matter is being investigated. It is to be noted that under Section 23(1) of the Act, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (in short the 'Rules') have been framed."
13. In the instant case not only a castiest remark made by the petitioner herein but also destruction of crops of the complainant by spraying inflammable material having trespassed upon his lands was projected by the complainant both in his complaint and also in the pre summoning statement. In the presence of the other accused the castiest remark had been made as per the version of the complainant. Further, the occurrence had taken place in the land of the complainant. The complainant has also demonstrated prima facie that the petitioner wielded a threat and criminally intimidated him.
14. A person from rural pockets belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not normally worldly wise as his educational background is not that much commendable. His financial position also does not permit him to have his education in a very standard school. They are by and large simpletons. In my considered view, it is totally unjustified to expect a person from a rural background belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to come out with all the meticulous details of the ingredients required under Section 3 of the S.C. and S.T. Act. Further, such a person is Singh Parvinder 2014.01.22 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-42637 of 2013 8 incapable of engaging the best brain in the legal profession to prosecute the complaint. Of course, during the course of trial he has to lead substantial evidence to establish all the ingredients that would constitute the offence of Section 3 the S.C. and S.T. Act.
15. The law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court postulates that First Information Report is not an encyclopedia and all the meticulous details need not be incorporated in the complaint. But the above general proposition cannot be twisted and a rigors test cannot be prescribed in the case of complaint under the S.C. and S.T. Act lodged by a victim Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe person.
16. Neither before the trial court nor before the Revisional Court nor even before this court the petitioner had chosen to set up a plea that he belonged to Scheduled Caste. If at all the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste and no prosecution under the above act would lie as against him, he could have come out with the documents in his possession or the information within his special knowledge to demonstrate that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste and, therefore, no prosecution under the above act was permissible under law. When such plea had not been made by the petitioner it is totally unjust to throw away the prosecution launched by the complainant on the ground that he had not specifically referred in the complaint or in the pre summoning statement that the petitioner herein did not belong to Scheduled Caste.
17. Of course, two judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Singh Parvinder 2014.01.22 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Misc. No. M-42637 of 2013 9 Court in Gorige Pentaiah's case (supra ) and Asmathunnisa's case (supra) and this court in Dr. Onkar Chander Jagpal's case (supra) have held that there should be a specific averment in the complaint lodged under the scope of the S.C. and S.T. Act that the accused was not the member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. But I prefer to follow the decision rendered by three judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale case (supra) wherein it had been declared in a case arose under the S.C. and S.T. Act that a complaint lodged by a person belonging to Scheduled Caste complaining of an offence committed against him under the Act cannot be quashed on the ground that there was no averment that the accused did not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the First Information Report was not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence.
18. In my considered view, the courts below have rightly rejected the plea of the petitioner. I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed.
(M. JEYAPAUL) JUDGE January 13, 2014 p.singh Singh Parvinder 2014.01.22 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document