SAROJ Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short `Code') has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 3.11.2002 submitted in case crime No. 203/2002 under sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and section 3 (2) (X) of the S. C. and S. T. Act and also the summoning order dated 4.12.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar in criminal case No. 2949/2002.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this pe­tition are that respondent No. 2 lodged an F.I.R. on 22.9.2002 at P S. Gang Nahar, District Haridwar against the revisionists alleging that. they as­saulted his wife Smt. Rajkali and niece Rubi and gave threat to kill them at about 6 PM. on that day. Both the victims received injuries. The com­plainant-respondent No. 2 is a Harijan by caste and whereas the petitioners belong to higher caste and, therefore, the police registered the case under the above sections. On investigation charge sheet has accordingly been submitted against the petitioners and the same is impugned in this case.

(3.) FROM perusal of the above pro­vision it is evident that the offence will be made out if a member of a Scheduled Caste or-Scheduled Tribe is intentionally intimidated with intent to humiliate him in public view. This do not appear to be the case here be­cause the complainant disclosed his caste as Harijan when the Head Moharir made a query from him at the time of lodging of the F.I.R. (Annexure-1). Copy of the statements of complainant Dharamveer Singh and his wife Smt. Rajkali recorded under section 161 of the `Code' (Annexure-4) reveal that in the instant case the alleged assailants have not used insulting and intimidating lan­guage with reference to the caste of the said alleged victims. Therefore, neither the allegations made in the first information report nor the state­ments recorded during investigation prima facie constitute an offence pun­ishable under section 3 (2) (X) of the S. C. and S. T. Act, there was no occasion to file charge sheet under this offence by the Investigating Officer. Further, at the time of the taking cognizance the learned Magistrate was suppose to have perused the allega­tions of the FI.R. and the case diary but the same appears to have not been done and, therefore, the order of taking cognizance dated 4.12.2002 in regard to the said offence can not be legally justified.