Madhumita, the informant has challenged the judgement in Vijay Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2024) by Justice Bibek Chaudhuri of Patna High Court who had passed a 6-page long order dated March 1, 2024 wherein, he concluded:"13. ....as the incident which has been narrated by the informant did not take place within “public view”, the allegation made out against the petitioner under Section 3 (i) (r) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 cannot sustained. 14. Accordingly, the FIR under Section 3 (i) (r) against the petitioner be quashed. 15. The instant Writ Petition is thus allowed in part." It came up for hearing in the Supreme Court. Its order dated July 2, 2025 records:"On both calls, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Adverse orders are deferred."
Justice Chaudhary relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710. The Supreme Court observed that the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 3 (i) (r) is intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Schedule Caste and a Schedule Tribe “in any place within public view”. What is to be regarded as “place in public view” had come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Swaran Singh & Ors vs. State through standing counsel and Anr, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435. The Court had drawn distinction between expression “public place” and any place within “public view”. It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building, as for example in a lawn, outside a house and a lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within “public view”. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building but some members of the public are there, then it would not be an offence since it was not in the “public view”.
According to the complainant, the petitioner had abused her in the official chamber of the school in presence of two other teachers. The High Court observed: "Even if, the allegation made by the petitioner is accepted as true, it would be found that the incident allegedly occur in a “public place” but not within the “public view”. 10. Therefore, prima facie, allegation under Section 3 (i) (r) cannot be substantiated. 12. There is another point which is pertinent to state in this case that offence under Section 3(i) (r) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 is committed always by a person not being a member of the Scheduled Castes or Schedule Tribes. The petitioner of the instant writ petition stated that he also belongs to a member of Extremely Backward Class (EBC), namely “Nonia”. Section 3 of the said Act stipulates that if the offence
described in various provisions of Section 3 is committed by a person not belonging to a SC/ST, he is liable to be prosecuted. Therefore, the petitioner being a “Nonia” cannot take any advantage for his act.
Ms. Madhumita, the Assistant Teacher in the Upgraded Middle School, Belkhunda, Pakriwaran, made a written complaint to the jurisdictional police station on January 18, 2018, alleging, inter alia, that on January 17, 2018 at about 09.30 AM, the informant reached the school by half an hour late. The informant requested the Headmaster to allow her to mark her presence in the attendance register but she came to know that the petitioner had kept the attendance register in his Almirah. Since the informant came to the school late, she was not allowed to put her attendance mark on the attendance register. While insisting upon the attendance register, the petitioner misbehaved with her. She was abused by the petitioner in the name of her caste and other abusive languages. The petitioner also rushed towards the informant with his shoes to beat her, but for timely intervention by other teachers and students. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was lodged against the petitioner being Pakribarawan (Dhamoul O.P) P.S. case 2018, dated January 19, 2018, under Sections 341, 323, 354 and 504 of the IPC and Section 3 (i) (r) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. Section 3 (i) (r) reads: “Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view:.”
The petitioner had invoked Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court praying for quashing of the FIR instituted against him on the basis of a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 3 (i) (r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and other consequential reliefs.
No comments:
Post a Comment