Full Judgment
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.
1. Petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding initiated against them vide Complaint Case No. 355 of 1998 as also the order dated 7.4.1999 passed by Shri P.N. Rai, Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj in the aforesaid case, whereby cognizance for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for the alleged violation of Clauses viii, ix and x of Section 3 of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was taken by the Court below.
2. Prayer for quashing has been made on the basis of two main grounds; the first ground is that the order of cognizance and continuation of the criminal proceeding, is bad in law and is an abuse of the process of the Court on account of the fact that even on the basis of the entire allegations in the complaint, no offence either for the offence under Section 3 or Section 4 of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the petitioners. The second ground is that the case has been filed with mala fide intention and by way of taking revenge against the petitioners for the case instituted by them against the complainant/opposite party No. 2, for the offences under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
3. Facts of the case in brief, as appearing from the complaint, filed by the complainant/opposite party No. 2, is that the complainant who is the member of the Scheduled Caste, is the driver of the truck bearing registration No. BRO 1461, the owner of which is one Indradeo Pandey. It is alleged that in the afternoon of 28.3.1998 accused persons 1 to 3 intercepted a truck, which was loaded with stone chips. They forced the complainant driver of the truck to accompany them to the forest range office at Chainpur and had even manhandled him, assaulting him with fists and slaps, at the forest office, the present petitioners, who were the Range Officers and Divisional Officer respectively, were present and they too had assaulted the complainant and abused him with reference to his caste and had also threatened to institute a false cause against him. The complainant alleged that such offensive act was committed by the accused persons without any cause, although he did posses a valid licence for driving the truck and had valid permit for transporting the stone chips besides valid documents pertaining to the vehicle. The complainant adds further that he and other labourers, who were engaged as khalishi in the truck, were arrested and taken into custody and subsequently, they were granted bail on 1.4.1998 and after his arrest, he was forced to sign on blank papers, which were illegally converted into his purported confessional statement.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint has been filed by the complainant by suppressing the material facts that on the aforesaid date of occurrence, the truck loaded with stone chips was seized by the forest guard on the ground that the stone chips were illegally lifted from within the forest area and a case for the offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act was registered not only against the driver of the truck, but also against the owner of the vehicle and others who were arrested at the spot. The truck, which was seized, was confiscated after initiation of confiscation proceeding vide confiscation case No. 1 of 1999. The prayer for release of the seized truck made by its owner was refused even by the Hon'ble High Court. Learned Counsel adds further that even on reading the entire allegation in the complaint, no offence under Section 3 or 4 of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out as because, though it is alleged that the accused persons had indulged in abuse against the complainant, but such alleged acts were confined within the office of the Forest Ranger and not in public view. Referring to the ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, learned Counsel submits that the offences could be made only if the act is committed in public place or public view and this essential ingredient of the offences is conspicuously lacking in the complaint of the complainant and yet, the learned Court below has passed the impugned order of cognizance without application of judicial mind. It is further submitted that it is apparent that from the background of the facts and circumstances also that the complaint was filed entirely with mala fide intention for causing harassment to the petitioners and to take revenge against them for the case instituted against the complainant and others under the penal provisions of the Indian Forest Act.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned Counsel for the State.
6. It is submitted by learned Counsel that from the allegation in the complaint petition, a prima facie case for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act is made out. Learned Counsel explain that as per the allegations, the complainant was assaulted and forced to drive his truck to the range office where the petitioners had allegedly indulged in abuses with reference to the complainant's caste in presence of the staff of the petitioners and therefore, it cannot be said that the offence was not committed in public view.
7. Considering the submission made by the parties and position of law, it appears that the truck loaded with stone chips, was seized and the complainant was arrested by the forest guard on the ground that an offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act was committed by him. As per the allegation, petitioners were not present at the place of secure of the truck. Their presence has been shown within the office of the Forest Ranger where it is alleged that the petitioners had abused the complainant and had indulged in such abuses by referring to his caste. It also appears that prior to the institution of the complainant, a case for the offence under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act was instituted against the complainant and others and a confiscation proceeding in respect of the seized truck was also initiated which had ended in confiscation of the vehicle.
8. Section 3 of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act relates to the offence of atrocities on the members of SC and ST community and provides for punishment for the offence of atrocities. Clause viii, ix and x of the Act reads as follows.
3. Punishment for offences of atrocities. - (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
(viii) institutes false, malicious or vexatious suit or criminal or other legal proceedings against a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
(ix) gives any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.
From reading the Clauses viii and ix of the Act, it would be apparent that the offence would be complete only if it is proved that the case instituted by the petitioners against the complainant for the offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act was a false, case and malicious and vexatious proceeding and likewise, only if it is proved that any false and frivolous information was given against the complainant by and other accused persons to any public servant, there by causing such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of the complainant who is a member of the scheduled caste. Neither of the Clauses namely Clauses viii and ix can come into operation unless falsity or maliciousness of the criminal proceeding is proved or the information given to any public servant is proved to be false. In absence of any such proof, there could be no such occasion for taking cognizance for the offence under Section 3 (viii) (ix) and (x) of the Act.
As regards the offence relating to the violation of the Clause x of Section 3 of the Act, it constitutes an offence only if the insult or intimidation was made to a member of the scheduled caste with intent to humiliate him in any public place within public view. In the instant case, admittedly the alleged act of insult as levelled against the petitioners, was made inside the office of the Forest Ranger. The averments in the complaint petition do not refer to any such allegation to the effect that the alleged abuse or offensive utterances was made within the public view. The provision of Clause x of Section 3 of the Act does not make any utterances within the purview of the penal offences. To constitute the penal offence, utterances must be shown to be made in any public place within the public view. In the present case, admittedly, the scene of offence was within the office of the Forest Ranger and in absence of any allegation that the alleged abuse or utterance by the petitioner was made within he 'public view', the basic ingredients of the offence is lacking.
9. From perusal of the impugned order of cognizance, it appears that the learned Court below has not applied its judicial mind to the above aspect of the case with reference to the allegation in the complaint and has also failed to consider that even on the basis of the allegation in the complaint, no offence under Section 3 clauses-viii, ix and x of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is made out against the petitioners. For the same reason, cognizance for the offence under Section 4 of the Act is also bad, since the allegation in the complaint do not attract the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act reads as follows:
4. Punishments for neglect of duties. - Whoever, being a public servant but not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, willfully neglects his duties required to be performed by him under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year.
10. On a bare reading of the allegations in the complaint, there appears no such allegation which could attract the ingredients of the aforesaid section of the Act. It appears from the above that the learned Court below while recording its impugned order of cognizance, has not applied its judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order of cognizance is bad in law and continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners on the basis of such order of cognizance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
11. For the reasons stated above, 1 find merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The entire criminal proceeding pending against the petitioners in the Court of Shri P.N. Rai, Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj including the order of cognizance dated 7.4.1999 passed by the learned Court below in complainant case No. 355 of 1998, is hereby quashed. Application allowed.