The Allahabad High Court while allowing an appeal observed that an offence under S.C/S.T Act, 1989 would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment in any place within the public view.
A Single Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed passed this order while hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by Bhaiya Lal Singh.
The Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant, namely, Bhaiya Lal Singh with a prayer to set aside the proceedings of the Special Sessions Trial (State Vs Manager B.L Singh and Others) arising out of Case at Police Station-Kotwali, District-Rae Bareli, under Section 143 and 506 I.P.C as well as under Section 3(1)(Dha) of S.C/S.T Act, 1989, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, S.C/S.T Act, Rae Bareli.
Further prayer is to set aside the impugned cognizance as well as summoning order dated 07.02.2022 passed by Special Judge, S.C/S.T Act, Rae Bareli in the aforesaid case, whereby cognizance was taken against the appellant.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the facts of the case is that the appellant is an educationist by profession and runs a school, named as, BSS Public School at Anmol Vihar in Rae Bareli and he also the manager of the said institution, which is affiliated to C.B.S.E Board.
On 30.07.2021, result of Class XIIth by C.B.S.E Board was declared for the academic year 2020-2021, wherein total 140 students appeared from the school of the appellant and out of which, 129 students passed, 23 students had to write compartment examination and 11 students failed. Out of the 11 failed students, one student, namely, Ritesh Sonkar is the son of respondent no 3.
Counsel for the appellant further submitted that aggrieved by the fact that son of the respondent no 3 failed, the respondent no 3 entered into the school premises and started misbehaving and abusing the teachers.
After considering the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perusal of record in light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of evidence and the contents of the F.I.R, statements of witnesses, charge sheet as well as summoning order dated 07.02.2022, this court is of the view that the Act, 1989 is meant to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes, to provide for Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, the Court observed.
It is further observed that the Act, 1989 was enacted to improve the social economic conditions of the vulnerable sections of the society as they have been subjected to various offences such as indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have been deprived of life and property as well.
The object of the Act, 1989 is thus to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations and harassment and commit the offence as defined under Section 3 of the Act, 1989.
The Act, 1989 thus intended to punish the acts of the upper caste against the vulnerable section of the society for the reason that they belong to a particular community.
In the case, the Court found that the appellant has not abused the respondent No 3 by caste name in any place within the public view, even though, the respondent No 3 has not stated anything about abuses hurled to him by the appellant nor any caste language has been used against the respondent No 3, thus, the allegations as leveled in the F.I.R does not constitute offence under Section 3(1)(Dha) of the Act, 1989.
Thus, in the case the Magistrate without considering the material available before him and even without considering the averments made in the F.I.R in which as per the own case of the respondent No 3 the alleged incident took place inside his house and at that time no public was present nor there was any public view, even though the two independent witnesses have denied about any such incident as alleged by respondent No 3.
The Magistrate while taking cognizance did not consider the statements of the appellant and other named persons which was recorded by the Investigating Officer before filing the chargesheet. Thus, the ingredients of Section 3(1)(Dha) of Act, 1989 is not attracted in the present case and as such, no offence under the aforesaid section is made out against the appellant.
The Court further found that,
In this case, it is alleged in the F.I.R and the statement of the respondent No 3 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C that the appellant made an offer of Rs 5,00,000/- to the respondent No 3 to settle the matter.
It is hard to believe that a person whose son has failed in Class XIIth examination conducted by C.B.S.E Board wherein the appellant has no concern at all regarding the declaration of the result, why would the appellant offer Rs 5,00,000/- to the respondent No 3 when the final authority for declaring the result is C.B.S.E Board, this story as made by the respondent No 3 appears to be unbelievable and unacceptable even though no independent witness has supported the case that the appellant has committed the offence of criminal intimidation, thus, the ingredients of Section 506 I.P.C is also not attracted in the present case and no offence under Section 506 I.P.C is made out against the appellant.
In order to attract the ingredients of Section 506 I.P.C, the intention of the accused must be to cause alarm to the victim. Mere expression of words without any intention to cause alarm would not suffice.
Mere vague and bald allegations that the accused threatened the victim with dire consequences is not sufficient to attract the provisions under Section 506 I.P.C. The threat should be a real one and not just a mere word when the person uttering does not exactly mean what he says and also when the person against whom the threat is launched, does not feel threatened actually.
Thus, after perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of evidence and as per the contents of the F.I.R as well as the statements of respondent No 3 and other witnesses and considering the various case laws referred above, the incident does not appear to happen, thus, Section 3(1)(Dha) of Act, 1989 is not attracted against the appellant as the incident did not occur in any “place within a public view”, even though Sections 143 and 506 of I.P.C are also not attracted against the appellant, as such, considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma (Supra), Ramesh Chandra Vaishya (Supra), Fakhruddin Ahmad (Supra) as well as law laid down by coordinate Bench of the Court in the case of Ankit (Supra) the Court is of the view that the court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record.
The cognizane as well as summoning order dated 07.02.2022 passed by the court below is liable to be reversed and set aside as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed.
“Accordingly in view of the above discussions and observations made, the appeal is allowed, the impugned summoning as well as cognizance order dated 07.02.2022 passed by Special Judge, S.C/S.T Act, Raebareli, whereby the appellant has been summoned in Special Sessions Trial (State Vs Manager B.L Singh and Others) arising out of Case under Section 143 and 506 I.P.C as well as under Section 3(1)(Dha) of S.C/S.T Act, 1989, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Raebareli, is hereby set aside and reversed, the criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case is also quashed so far as it relates to the appellant”, the Court ordered.