DEVENDRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants have filed this criminal revision against the order dtd. 4/4/2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Korba, in Special Criminal Case No.06/2021, whereby the Special Judge has framed the charge for offences under Ss. 342, 294, 323, 506B Part-II, 325 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC and Sec. 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1989') against the applicants.

(2.) At the outset, Dr.N.K.Shukla, learned Senior Counsel with Ms Priya Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, would submit that he only emphasized the charge which has been framed under Sec. 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989, for which there is complete want of necessary material. So, no offence of said Sec. is attracted. Even if the entire charge-sheet is taken as it is, the allegation for the Act of 1989 is not available. He would further submit that the dispute was not on the fact that complainant / respondent No.3 was a member of Scheduled Tribes. He also submits that finding that the applicants were aware of caste of the informant is wholly inconsequential as the knowledge does not bar any person to protect his rights. There is money dispute with respondent No.3 as the applicants have not acted in any manner with intention to humiliate respondent No.3 on the ground that he is belonging to Scheduled Tribes. So, continuance of proceeding in the said charge is clearly abuse of process of law. The Special Judge has committed grave legal error in framing of such charge. So, he prays to allow the instant revision and discharge the applicant from the said charge. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Krishna Yadav and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer 2021 SCC OnLine Chh 431. Learned Senior Counsel contended that presumption under Sec. 8 of the Act of 1989 has also not attracted in the facts of the present case. He also placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of M.S.Narayana Menon alias Mani v. State of Kerala and another (2006) 6 SCC 39 and Izhar Khan vs. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 1052.

(3.) Per contra, Mr.Amrito Das, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2 /State and Mr.Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, would support the impugned order and submit that in the revision itself it has not disputed that applicant No.1-Devendra Pandey is also political figure. They would further submit that father of respondent No.3 is also one of the Board of Directors of Shrishti Medical College as applicant No.1 and father of respondent No.3/complainant both have belonged to the same political party and father of the complainant prior to complaint has also worked as Home Minister in State of Chhattisgarh and very well known to everyone that he has contested the election against reserved category of Scheduled Tribes and applicant No.1 is also active political member, so he is much aware of caste of respondent No.3. Even in the revision, the applicants have not denied that they are not aware of caste of the complainant. They further submitted that even applicant No.1 has lodged complaint on 31/8/2016 to the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range alleging that he has an apprehension that the complainant may rope him in a false case of Atrocities Act. Thereafter, the incident took place on 26/8/2020 at about 7.30 p.m. when the applicants along with other co-accused restrained the complainant on his way and also assaulted and abused in filthy language and also threatened to kill him. So, the said offence is mentioned in Schedule of the Act of 1989. They also contended that to attract Sec. 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989, at the stage of charge, the Court has only to see that whether the offence is specified in the Schedule and the accused knowing that such person is a member of such category committed an offence for the Schedule offence. They lastly submitted that at the stage of charge, only strong suspicion is sufficient and there is also presumption under Sec. 8(c) of the Act of 1989. They placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari and Another 2022 SCC OnLIne 1057.