Shobh Nath Gupta Vs. Raghunath Saket - Court Judgment

M.Cr.

C No.7741/12.

6.3.2013 Shri A.P.Singh and Shri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants.

Shri Bhanu Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

Shri Vivek Lakhera, learned P.L.for the respondent no.2.

In compliance of earlier direction this matter is listed today for final hearing at motion stage.

With the consent of the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

The applicants/accused have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashment of the order dated 17.5.2012, passed by Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge Sidhi in Cr.

Revision No.123/11, affirming the order dated 2.8.2010, passed by Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class Sidhi in criminal case No.1004/10, whereby in a private complaint filed by the respondent no.1 herein, the cognizance for the offence of Section 294, 323, 506 Part-II of I.P.C.as well as of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short ‘the Act’) has been taken against the applicants.

Applicants’ counsel after taking me through the papers placed on the record including the copy of the impugned complaint and orders so also the judgment dated 28.2.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class Sidhi in criminal case No.1429/09 whereby, the applicants no.1, 2 and 3 with respect of the criminal incident of dated 17.10.2009 have been acquitted from the charge of Sections 294, 323, 34 and 506 Part- II of I.P.C., argued that the impugned prosecution of the applicants is not sustainable because by virtue of Section 300 of Cr.P.C., with respect of the same incident, the accused could not be prosecuted again second time if he has already been prosecuted earlier.

In continuation he said that, the impugned private complaint has been filed by the respondent no.1 with respect of the same incident for which some of the applicants herein were prosecuted in criminal case No.1429/09 and acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate FiRs.Class on 28.2.2011 and thereafter, this subsequent private complaint with respect of the same incident has been filed.

In such premises, the trial Court has taken over the cognizance of the aforesaid offence against the applicants under the wrong premises and the revisional Court also committed error in affirming such order.

In addition he said that, any of the alleged act as per charge sheet was not committed by any applicants’ in a public view with intention to humiliate the victim on account of his case therefore, in any case, the impugned cognizance of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, taken against the applicants is not sustainable and prayed to dismiss the complaint of respondent no.1 by admitting and allowing this petition.

Having heard the counsel keeping in view his arguments, I have carefully gone through the record available with the petition.

It is undisputed fact that in the aforesaid earlier Criminal Case No.1429/09, was initiated by the police against the applicants No.1 to 3 after holding the investigation with respect of the alleged criminal incident of dated 17.10.2009.

The applicant no.4 was not impleaded as accused in such earlier case.

Mere perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the earlier case and the complaint of the impugned case, it is apparent that the earlier alleged incident was happened on 17.10.2009, while the impugned case was happened on 4.11.2009.

The time and places of both the incidents are also different.

Apart this, the applicant no.4 Smt.

Dhanoua Gupta, is an additional accused in the present case who was not the accused in the earlier case.

Besides, there are so many distinguishable features in both the cases on which it could not be said that, the applicants are being prosecuted by the respondent no.1 in the present private complaint for the same incident on second time for which they have already faced the trial and the same was culminated in their acquittal.

It is settled proposition of law that every criminal case is decided on the basis of it’s own recorded evidence.

So in the available scenario of the matter as stated above, the impugned private complaint could be adjudicated by the trial Court only after holding the trial in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C.So, firstly in view of the aforesaid this petition could not be entertained for quashment of the trial of impugned case.

Coming to consider the question whether prima facie circumstances to take the cognizance of offence of Section 3 (1) (x) of the aforesaid Act against the applicants was available in the matter before the trial Court.

It is apparent from the averments of the complaint as well as the deposition of the complainant/respondent no.1 recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.that the alleged filthy abused was carried out by the applicants by taking the name of the caste of the victim covered under the act with intention to humiliate him on account of his caste, it is also stated that the alleged abused were spoken by the applicants in presence of the villagers although, at his residence.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, I have not found any circumstance in the matter to invoke the inherent power of this Court enumerated under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashment of the impugned order and complaint of the respondent no.1.

Consequently, this petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge Pb