The Supreme Court reiterated the legislative intent regarding the interpretation of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The Apex Court clarified that the intent of the legislature is clear in distinguishing between general insults or intimidation and those specifically aimed at individuals due to their caste or tribal identity.
Brief Facts of the Case:
A Criminal Appeal was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the impugned judgement of the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court dismissed the application of the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”), which sought the quashing of the charge sheet and the ongoing criminal proceedings.
Brief Background of the Case:
An altercation between the appellant and the complainant on January 14, 2016. The appellant is accused of verbally abusing the complainant and physically assaulting him, resulting in multiple injuries. A First Information Repor was registered against the appellant under relevant Sections of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as “SC/ST Act”).
The investigation concluded that there was enough evidence to proceed with the trial, leading to the filing of a charge sheet. It is important to note that the appellant also intended to file an F.I.R. regarding the same incident, alleging that he was beaten up by the complainant and his son. However, his F.I.R. was not registered initially, and he was instead detained. Eventually, a second F.I.R. was registered based on the appellant's complaint.
Procedural History:
The appellant also filed a civil suit seeking an injunction against the complainant's encroachment on his lands. Dissatisfied with the charge sheet, the appellant approached the High Court, seeking its quashing and alleging malicious intent. The High Court granted interim relief, but upon further consideration, it found no irregularities in the charge sheet or the procedure followed. The High Court emphasized that, at this stage, it cannot determine the veracity of the allegations without proper evidence. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appellant's application, citing limited jurisdiction and the need for evidence to evaluate the case's merits.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The appellants contended that the delay in registering the first F.I.R. raises doubts about its credibility and suggests it was an afterthought. The charge sheet was hastily filed without conducting a proper investigation, failing to consider the appellant's second F.I.R. and the medical report. They alleged that the complainant, who holds influence in the village, maliciously initiated criminal proceedings to undermine an ongoing civil dispute between the parties. The appellant's complaint was ignored by the police, and the second F.I.R. was only registered after the Magistrate's order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. They contended that neither the first F.I.R. nor the charge sheet provided precise details of the abusive language used by the appellant to warrant the application of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. Accordingly, the appellant requested the Court to grant the relief sought.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents argued for the dismissal of the appeal and contended that the appellant was accused of committing severe crimes that resulted in multiple injuries to the complainant during their altercation. The police, based on the complainant's statement and subsequent investigation, filed the charge sheet before the trial Court following the appropriate procedure. The High Court's decision to dismiss the appellant's application for quashing was justified and in accordance with established law. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and the High Court's refusal to intervene was not erroneous.
The respondents argued that although the completion of the investigation within a day by the investigating officer may appear unusual, it is not impossible. Furthermore, they contended that since the charge sheet has been filed, the legal process should be allowed to proceed. If the appellant disagrees with the framing of charges, the appellant could seek the appropriate legal remedy.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court concluded that even if the appellant did insult or humiliate the complainant with caste-related abuses, it does not substantiate the complainant's case under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The first F.I.R. and the charge sheet make no reference to the specific words uttered by the appellant during the verbal altercation or the complainant's caste, except for the general allegation of caste-related abuses. The legislative intent is clear that mere insult or intimidation of a person is not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act unless it is specifically targeted at the victim due to their belonging to a particular Scheduled Caste or Tribe. Therefore, the charge sheet does not establish a case for the appellant's offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, and it is essential that the specific utterances made by the appellant in a public place be outlined in the charge-sheet to ascertain the viability of the offence.
The Apex Court further held that the outcome of the second F.I.R. remains unclear. Given the circumstances, there is little basis to allow the proceedings to continue under Section 323 of the IPC. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that while the appellant may have insulted the complainant, such abuse alone, without additional factors, does not warrant subjecting the appellant to trial, especially considering the absence of intentional insults that could incite public disturbance or other offences.
It is noted that the High Court failed to properly appreciate the challenge to the criminal proceedings and the charge sheet, resulting in a serious miscarriage of justice.
The decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court concluded that allowing the continuation of a Criminal Case would constitute an abuse of the legal process. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court are quashed.
Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Vaishya VS. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No 1617 of 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 504 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Advocates for Petitioner: Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR
Advocates for Respondent: Mr. Ardhendhumauli Kumar Prasad, A.A.G., Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR, Ms. Sherya Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Ashish Madaan, Adv., Mr. Aman Pathak, Adv., Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv., Ms. Ananya Sahu, Adv., Mr. Divyanshu Sahay, Adv., Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR, Mr. Sanjay Shukla, Adv., Mr. Adhitya Srinivasan, Adv., Mr. Karan Thakur, Adv. and Mr. Rishabh Kanojiya, Adv.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
