SUSHANT PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No.20/16 registered at Police Station AJK, Narsinghpur, for the offences under Sections 323, 355, 294, 190, 506 of the IPC and Section 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (v-a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(2.) Facts, in brief, giving rise to this petition are that a complaint was made by respondent no. 2 / complainant against the petitioner alleging that on 5.4.2016 she was harvesting the crops of wheat in the farm of the petitioner. As there was some delay in finishing of the work in time so the petitioner abused her and came forward to beat her with shoe and threatened that she would not get any remuneration in lieu of cutting of crops of wheat and he would kill her and would burn her house. The petitioner is a man of criminal background and he does not want to pay her wages. The In-charge of Police Station AJK, Narsinghpur made enquiry and submitted report to the Sub Divisional Officer (Police), Narsinghpur, District Narsinghpur, mentioning that the complaint is false. Thereafter, on the directions of this court issued in W.P. No.9414/16 vide order dated 2.6.2016 in the light of the Apex court's judgment of Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. , 2014 2 SCC 1, to consider the grievance of the petitioner, a fresh complaint was filed by respondent no. 2 / complainant before the Superintendent of Police, Narsinghpur, District Narsinghpur who directed the S.D.O. (P) Narsinghpur to act in accordance with law and thereafter, a report as Crime No.20/16 at Police Station AJK, Narsinghpur was registered under the aforesaid sections. Charge sheet has been filed for commission of the aforesaid offences by the petitioner.

(3.) The aforesaid proceeding has been challenged on the ground that earlier in the preliminary enquiry made by In-charge of Police Station AJK, Narsinghpur dated 12.6.2016 has established that the complaint is false as other witnesses who were admittedly present on the spot at the time of incident have disclosed that no such incident had taken place. When the petitioner shown his wrath about not cutting of crops of wheat in time, respondent no. 2 rushed towards him with sickle to assault him then the witnesses rescued the petitioner and the petitioner had no knowledge of the fact that respondent no. 2 / complainant was belonging to scheduled caste community as he knows her Muslim because of her marriage and having three grown up children with Muslim. Hence, there is no iota of material to constitute an offence of atrocity on the ground of caste and thereafter, on account of the directions of this court without application of mind and without necessary inquiry, FIR has been registered and merely on the basis of statement of the complainant, charge sheet has been filed. There is no medical evidence or statement of any other independent witnesses to prove the prosecution story. The facts and circumstances show that respondent no. 2 is keenly interested to mire the petitioner just to grind her own axe with oblique motive through criminal proceeding. Further contention is that certificate of caste of the complainant is invalid as after marriage with a person of Muslim religion she cannot claim to be a member of scheduled caste community as she was belonging earlier. Hence, the caste certificate is invalid and it is also contended that there is no caste certificate or other evidence that the petitioner does not belong to SC/ST community; therefore, he cannot be prosecuted with regard to commission of the offence under the SC/ST community. If the prosecution of the petitioner is continued it would amount to miscarriage of justice and misuse of process of the court as well. Hence, the proceedings be quashed.