SANJEEV KUMAR SAINI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., applicant seeks to quash the charge-sheet dtd. 7/7/2017 and the summoning order dtd. 19/7/2017 passed by Special Sessions Judge (SC and ST Act)/Sessions Judge, Dehradun as well as the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.9 of 2017 State vs. Sanjeev Kumar Saini, punishable under Sec. 504 of The Indian Penal Code, Sec. 66 of Information Technology Act and u/s 3(1)(X) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 moved an application before S.S.P. Dehradun alleging therein that she is resident of Hathibarkala Dehradun. In the year 2012, she went to her sister's house at Jhansi for studies where she got acquainted with a girl Sushma, who introduced her to the applicant. At that point of time, the complainant was minor. After some time, the complainant came back to Dehradun but they continued talking and meeting each other. The complainant stated that she and the applicant crossed their limits in friendship and the applicant also clicked some photographs of her. Thereafter, the behaviour of the applicant got changed and he started pressuring her to do filthy talks with him. During this period, he also managed to obtain her Facebook password. She alleged that the applicant is blackmailing her and is creating pressure upon her to establish physical relationship with him. She objected said act of the application and also tried to convince him but to no avail. When she stopped talking to the applicant, he made calls on mobile phones of his family members from different numbers and threatened her that if she will not meet him, he will publish the photographs in public and will destroy her life. The complainant further alleged that now she has been engaged to someone else but the applicant is still torturing her and is using caste indicating words against her. The applicant is uploading her obscene photographs on internet. On the application, F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant on 30/6/2017 and case crime no.153/2017 was registered against him under Ss. 504 of The Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC), Sec. 66 of Information Technology Act (for short, I.T. Act) and u/s 3(1)(X) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, SC/ST Act). Matter was investigated and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant under the aforesaid Sec. . On submission of charge-sheet, Special Judge (SC, ST Act) has taken cognizance in the matter and summoned the applicant to face trial.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the summoning order passed by the trial court in respect of offence punishable under Sec. 66 of I.T. Act and 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act is illegal as from the averments of the F.I.R. no case is made out against the applicant under the said Sec. . Learned counsel would contend that nowhere it is mentioned in the FIR that the applicant was not a member of Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimated with intent to humiliate the complainant in a public place. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel would place reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh5 and would refer to following paragraphs:-