KAMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

(2.) SHRI Datt appearing for the applicant assails the impugned order whereby the learned Special Judge, Hoshangabad, has framed charges under Sections 294 and 506 and has discharged the applicant from offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According to Mr. Datt, on the basis of materials on record, if the applicant/accused has been discharged in respect of the charge under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, he could not have been proceeded against, again on that basis under Sections 294 and 506, IPC. Mr. Datt submits that the complainant, a member of SC/st community, was also a member of Panchayat and the quarrel is said to have originated in hot exchange of words over some financial matter concerning a social welfare scheme. Mr. Datt further submits that the class of society to which, the applicant and the complainant, belonged does not mind uttering abuses or words of threat because such words are not taken seriously in their society. Mr. Datt to substantiate his submission has placed reliance on judgments of this Court. In the case of Dalsingh v. State of M. P. (1957 MPLJ 21 Note No. 62), this Court sitting in criminal revision quashed the charges under Section 294 by holding as under:-" that in the class of society to which the parties belonged the abuses had no more significance than mere platitudinous utterances signifying the enraged state of the person's mind. As the accused were villagers and filthy abuses were not uncommon among villagers and in the strata of society to which they belonged, the sting was taken out of the words and they could not be characterised as obscene within the meaning of Section 294 of the IPC. Annoyance is the gist of the offence under Section 294 and in the absence of positive proof of annoyance, there could be no offence under Section 294, IPC. "

(3.) SIMILARLY, in another decision namely Roshanlal v. State of M. P. (1966 MPLJ 87 Note No. 172), this Court has reiterated the position.