9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 1109 - SC - Indian LawsValidity of charge-sheet as well as the summoning order - person belonging to Scheduled Caste - dispute regarding possession of property - HELD THAT - There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is the subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per Respondent No. 2 herself. Due to dispute, Appellant and others were not permitting Respondent No. 2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the matter is regarding possession of property pending before the Civil Court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In judgment reported as KHUMAN SINGH VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 2019 (8) TMI 1880 - SUPREME COURT , this Court held that in a case for applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhanced punishment. This Court held that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the Appellant only because the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence Under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out. The Appellant had sought quashing of the charge-sheet on the ground that the allegation does not make out an offence under the Act against the Appellant merely because Respondent No. 2 was a Scheduled Caste since the property dispute was not on account of the fact that Respondent No. 2 was a Scheduled Caste. The property disputes between a vulnerable Section of the society and a person of upper caste will not disclose any offence under the Act unless, the allegations are on account of the victim being a Scheduled Caste. Still further, the finding that the Appellant was aware of the caste of the informant is wholly inconsequential as the knowledge does not bar, any person to protect his rights by way of a procedure established by law. The charges against the Appellant Under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are not made out - the charge-sheet to that extent is quashed - Appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of charge-sheet and summoning order under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Applicability of Sections 452, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(e) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. Interpretation of "public view" under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. 4. Civil dispute and its impact on criminal proceedings under the Act. 5. Legal precedents and their applicability to the present case. Detailed Analysis: Quashing of Charge-sheet and Summoning Order The appeal challenges the High Court's order dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the charge-sheet and summoning order dated 25.6.2020. The appellant argued that the FIR was filed on false grounds to harass and abuse the process of law. Applicability of Sections 452, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(e) of the Act The FIR lodged by Respondent No. 2 accused the appellants of offenses under Sections 452, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(e) of the Act. The police report disclosed offenses under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, and the trial court took cognizance of these offenses on 25.6.2020. The appellant contended that the allegations did not disclose any offense under the Act, as the report neither mentioned the caste of the informant nor were the allegations made in public view. Interpretation of "Public View" under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act Section 3(1)(r) of the Act requires that the insult or intimidation must occur "in any place within public view." The judgment referenced Swaran Singh v. State through Standing Counsel and Ors., which distinguished between "public place" and "place within public view." The court held that the allegations of abuse within the four walls of the informant's building did not satisfy the requirement of being in a place within public view, as no public members were present. Civil Dispute and Its Impact on Criminal Proceedings under the Act The appellant argued that the property dispute was pending before the civil court and that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process. The court noted that the assertion of title over the land was not due to indignities, humiliations, or harassment based on caste. The court emphasized that property disputes do not disclose an offense under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimidated, or harassed solely because they belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Legal Precedents and Their Applicability to the Present Case The appellant relied on Gerige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., where the Supreme Court quashed a complaint involving caste-based abuse, and Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., where the FIR was not quashed due to the non-mention of the accused's caste. The court found that the High Court misread these judgments and that the allegations did not make out an offense under the Act. The court also referenced Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. and Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and Ors., which allowed for quashing proceedings under Section 482 of the Code in exceptional cases to prevent misuse of the Act's provisions. Conclusion The Supreme Court found that the charges under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act were not made out as the allegations did not occur in a place within public view, and the property dispute was not on account of the informant's caste. Consequently, the charge-sheet to that extent was quashed. The FIR in respect of other offenses will be tried by the competent court in accordance with the law. The appeal was disposed of in these terms.
|
