USHA CHOPRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE PETITIONER WAS SUMMONED AS AN ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 3(1)(X) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE `ACT' ONLY) ON THE BASIS OF A COMPLAINT FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND SOME OTHERS.

(2.) THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER ARE CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE COMPLAINT. A READING OF PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE COMPLAINT AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT OF THE COMPLAINANT AS CW-1 DOSE NOT DISCLOSE THAT THE PETITIONER MADE THE OBJECTIONABLE COMMENTS/REMARKS IN "PUBLIC VIEW". THE PRESENCE OF THE CO-ACCUSED ONLY OF THE PETITIONER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE "PUBLIC VIEW" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 3(1)(X) OF THE ACT. IN A RECENT JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN DAYA BHATNAGAR & ORS. V. STATE; REPORTED IN 109 (2004) DELHI LAW TIMES 915, THE WORDS "PUBLIC VIEW" AS USED IN SECTION 3(1)(X) OF THE ACT WERE INTERPRETED AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE "PUBLIC VIEW" MEANS THAT PERSONS FROM PUBLIC SHOULD BE PRESENT HOWSOEVER SMALL IN NUMBER TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3(1)(X) OF THE ACT.

(3.) IN THE CASE IN HAND, NEITHER THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT, NOR THE STATEMENT OF THE COMPLAINANT AS CW- 1 DISCLOSE THAT THE OBJECTIONABLE REMARKS/COMMENTS MADE BY THE PETITIONER WERE IN "PUBLIC VIEW" AND AS SUCH THE COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 3(1)(X) OF THE ACT AS WELL AS SUMMONING WERE GROUNDLESS, UNWARRANTED AND AN ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF LAW.