The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the petition filed seeking registration of FIR against Jagadguru Rambhadracharya under the SC/ST Act.
A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava passed this order while hearing an appeal filed by Prakash Chandra.
The appeal has been preferred with following prayer:-
“.. to set aside the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Prayagraj in Criminal Misc Case (Prakash Chandra Vs Rambhadracharya and others) under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C along with the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station-Bara, District- Prayagraj…”
The genesis of the matter relates to an Application preferred on behalf of appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C wherein certain statements made by opposite party no 2 during religious discourse has been highlighted which sought to be attracted being an offence under Section 120B, 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 500, 506 IPC along with Sections 3(1)(r)(q)(u)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, 1989 and Section 67 of IT Act but the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Prayagraj dismissed the same vide order dated 15.02.2024 on the ground of maintainability which impugned the appeal.
Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, a senior counsel, assisted by Vineet Sankalp, counsel for opposite party no 2, submitted that the reasoning and finding recorded by the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Prayagraj mentioned at the time of passing the order dated 15.02.2024 is quite reasonable and justified.
It is also submitted that the cause of action of action for preferring application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is not under the capacity of individual but for the community at large which is not covered in pursuance to Section 8 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
By way of elaborating the arguments, counsel for opposite party no 2 also submitted that the wordings which has been sought to be taken as offence under the same Act is not the personal instigation of any abusive words which may attract Sections 120B, 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 500, 506 IPC along with Sections 3(1)(r)(q)(u)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, 1989 and Section 67 of IT Act as submitted through the appeal.
It is also contended by the senior counsel that the submission earlier made by counsel for appellant is not part of the appeal and as such the offence whatsoever has been alleged is not directly indicating or reflecting any evidences against the opposite party no 2.
Yogesh Kumar Singh, AGA appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the sayings which has been pronounced by opposite party no 2 during religious discourse can be interpreted in so many ways and the same is not attracting any of the sections which has been mentioned under paragraph ‘E’ of the grounds taken up while preferring the appeal and as such the order dated 15.02.2024 is having no legal infirmity and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
“Perusing the grounds taken up while preferring the appeal along with narration available in the application preferred at the behest of appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and the reasoning recorded by the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Prayagraj, it is crystal clear that no specific offence under Sections 120B, 153A, 153B, 295A, 298, 500, 506 IPC along with Sections 3(1)(r)(q)(u)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, 1989 and Section 67 of IT Act is attracted for taking cognizance over the application preferred by appellant and the same was rightly dismissed on the grounds of maintainability.
It is also examined while considering the arguments raised by the senior counsel for opposite party no 2 that the pious intention of the legislation for protecting the interest and safeguarding the measures of protection for community at large specifically Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community, is that, if any damage has been committed by some another person who does not belong to the community of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, the Act ensures personal protection espousing the rights available to the person but for community at large the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is not at all maintainable,” the Court observed while dismissing the appeal.