PRABAL KUMAR DUBEY Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this criminal revision under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dtd. 24/6/2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mungeli, in Special Case No. 04/2022 whereby charge under Sec. 294 of the IPC and Sec. 3(1) (u) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been framed.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that complainant Virendra Dhritlahare lodged a written report against the applicant in Police Station Mungeli alleging that on 2/12/2021 Forest Ranger Prabal Dubey abused, insulted and used indecent words to his society in the name of their caste and the same was communicated by complainant's acquaintance over phone and the audio of the same is also viral on social media causing humiliation to the community as a whole thus, it is offence under the Atrocities Act. . On the basis of complaint, FIR under Crime No. 512 of 2021 under Sec. 294 of the IPC read with Sec. 3(1) (u) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered and after usual investigation Challan was filed and learned Special Judge, Mungeli has framed the charges on 24/6/2022 against the applicant.

(3.) Being aggrieved with the framing of charge the applicant has preferred this Criminal Revision mainly contending that the applicant is a public servant therefore, without permission of the Government trial cannot be begun. It has also been submitted that from perusal of the FIR and the complaint it is quite vivid that no words were used by the applicant which insult or humiliate the complainant to attract the offence under the Atrocities Act as such framing of charge and continuation of proceedings against the applicant is abused of process of law, therefore, deserves to be quashed. It has also been contended that from bare perusal of the complaint and the FIR, it is quite vivid that no offence has been made out for which he can be charge sheeted. It has been further contended that alleged viral video does not reflect that complainant has been humiliated by the applicant. He would further submit that Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases has held that the mens-rea is necessary for registration of an offence under the Special Act and from the material so gathered by the prosecution it is quite vivid no mensrea can be gathered that the applicant intends to humiliate or insult the complainant. He would further submit that to constitute offence, the allegation demonstrate that member of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe has been humiliated in a public place. Mere conversation between two persons regarding someone else i.e. third persons and if caste based word is spoken during conversation, it does not constitute the offence alleged upon the applicant. He would further submit that the authenticity of the audio has not been tested before taking registering the case of alleged offence against the applicant and he has falsely been implicated in the case due to enmity just to ruin his reputation in the society and to affect the service of the applicant of adversely. He would further submit that the registration of the offence against the applicant is clear abuse of the process of law because as per complaint of the complainant, the applicant had spoken to their acquaintances through medium of mobile phone subjecting Satnami caste-based abuse about one forester Dasrath Baghel, but no such complaint has been made by Dasrath Baghel in this regard and therefore prima facie no offence has been made out against the applicant. He would further submit that if the entire averments of the complaint are taken as it is recitals are not made out against the applicant and therefore the charge dtd. 24/6/2022 framed against the applicant along with Chargesheet deserve to be quashed. It is contended that learned Special Judge without examining the allegations made and taking into consideration that necessary ingredients for offences under Sec. 294 and Special Act are missing, framed charges against him for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 294 and 506-II of IPC, which is improper. Thus, it has been prayed for quashment of the FIR, charge sheet and subsequent criminal trial pending before learned Special Judge. To substantiate his submission, he has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhan in CRA No. 707 of 2020 decided on 5/11/2020 and Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana in CRR No. 1359 of 2019 on 14/5/2020.