RAVI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 17-8-2009 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Indore in Special Case No. 72/2009, whereby the charge has been framed against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (iii) and 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and under Section 506, IPC, present petition has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged by the complainant Yadvendra Singh Solanki against the petitioner and four other accused persons. In the complaint, it was alleged that the complainant Yadvendra Singh Solanki was asked by the petitioner and other co-accused to bring the water from the down stairs of the hostel after un-wearing his clothes. It was alleged that thereafter he was asked to wear the undergarments over the shirt and the pant. It was further alleged that the co-accused Mayank Singh threatened the complainant that he will take the ragging all over night. It was alleged that upon asking he was to complete his studies he was told that when he will be left in morning then he shall complete his studies. It was also written in the complaint that after removing his clothes he was asked to stand in shape of hen. After investigation the challan has been filed against the petitioner and co-accused persons. After securing presence of the petitioner and co-accused the charges have been framed by the impugned order against which the present petition has been filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner himself is a member of SC, ST category. It is submitted that no charge could have been framed against the petitioner for an offence alleged to have been committed under Section 3(1) (iii) and 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as the petitioner was the member of SC, ST category. Learned Counsel submits that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be quashed.

(3.) IN the matter of Karnal Singh Vs. State of M.P., reported in, 2003 (2) MPLJ 277, where the accused was charged in respect of offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it was held by this Court that is unreasonable to prosecute the accused under Sections 294 and 506, IPC on the basis of same abuses and the charges under Sections 294 and 506 were quashed. IN the matter of Prakash Gopalrao Pohare Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2008 Cri.LJ (NOC) 289, wherein Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in a case of abuse on the basis of caste held that FIR should disclose not only caste of complainant but also caste of accused. It was held that FIR not disclosing caste of accused liable to be quashed. It was further held that incident-taking place inside cabin of editor of daily newspaper and cabin of editor inside the office is exclusively a private property as public in general cannot have free access to such cabin. It was alleged that incident cannot be said to have taken place within public view. IN the matter of Nathabai Gavale Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2008 (6) ABR (NOC) 992, Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court in a case where recitals of FIR not showing caste of accused persons and the record was showing that one of accused herself was member of Schedule Caste, it was held that there can be no registration of a crime under the Atrocities Act and all investigation and further Court proceedings on the basis of such FIR cannot be maintained. IN the matter of Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2008(5) M.P.H.T. 247 (SC) = 2008 AIR SCW 6901, wherein complainant alleging that accused abusing him with name of his caste and the allegations of intentional humiliation in place within public view also absent, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the complaint lacks basic ingredient of offence, therefore, the continuance of proceedings would be abuse of process of law. IN the matter of Udaysingh Ramsingh Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2009 Cri.LJ (NOC) 783, wherein the alleged incident of insult or intimidation took place inside house of applicant and not in the public place, Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court held that act amounting to insult or humiliation to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be visible and audible public, otherwise it would not amount to offence.