KANJIBHAI RANDHIRBHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

(2.) By this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the applicants seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the first information report being C.R. No.II-153 OF 2016 registered before the Keshod Police Station, Junagadh for the offence punishable under Sec. 3(1)(R )(S), 3(2)(v)(a) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sec. 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Virat Popat appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is the principal of the N.P. Arts and Commerce College, Keshod. It is alleged in the complaint that on the date of the incident, as the sister of the complainant, namely, Urmilaben Jamnabhai Parmar was not found in the examination hall, somebody from the college phoned the father of the complainant and informed him about the non-availability of his daughter who in turn informed about the same to the complainant. Therefore, with a view to check the veracity of the said information, the complainant went to the said college at around 3:15 p.m. and straightway went to the chamber of the applicant and requested the applicant to show him the C.C.T.V footage of the examination hall as he wanted to know whether his sister was there in the room or not. It is also alleged that thereafter the applicant asked him about his caste whereupon the complainant informed that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste, and upon hearing the same, the applicant got enraged and started abusing the complainant against his caste. Learned advocate Mr. Popat further submits that as soon as the impugned FIR came to be registered against the applicant, he immediately approached this Court by way of filing the present application wherein then Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice, protected the applicant vide order dtd. 23/11/2018 by directing the investigating officer not to take any coercive steps against the applicant and, therefore, charge-sheet has yet not been filed against the applicant. He also submits that the present applicant has also filed a complaint against the complainant herein wherein the applicant herein has stated that on the date of the incident, the complainant herein was standing in the lobby of the college, and at that point of time, the applicant herein was passing through the lobby and asked the complainant herein as to why he was standing there, upon which, the complainant herein told the applicant that he is being informed that his sister is not found available in the examination hall and, therefore, he has come to the college to check the C.C.T.V. footage of the examination hall whereupon the applicant told him that as the examination is going on, it is not possible for him to show the C.C.T.V. footages of the hall right now, but he would come at 5:00 p.m. However, the complainant did not agree and got angry and started abusing the applicant herein saying that he will not leave the campus, due to which, some scuffle took place between them. He also submits that in the cross-complaint also, charge-sheet has yet not been filed and the matter is still at the stage of investigation. Learned advocate Mr. Popat submits that at the time of filing the impugned FIR, the complainant has not given the name of any independent person who had witnessed the incident. Learned advocate Mr. Popat also submits that sub- clauses (1) to (xv) of Sec. 3(1) of the Act enumerated various kinds of atrocities that might be perpetrated against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which constitute an offence. However, sub-clause (x) is the only clause where even offending utterances have been made punishable. The legislature required intention as an essential ingredient for the offence of insult, intimidation and humiliation of a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in any place within public view. Offences under the Act are quite grave and provide stringent punishments. Graver is the offence, stronger should be the proof. The interpretation which surpasses or evades the mischief and advances the object of the Act has to be adopted. He further submits that the 'public view' in Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present (howsoever small number it may be), should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties. In other words, persons having any kind of close relationship or association with the complainant, would necessarily get excluded.