HITESH VERMA versus THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 9 S.C.R. 593 · Decided: 05-11-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
593
HITESH VERMA
v.
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 2020)
NOVEMBER 05, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 482 – Petition under – For quashing charges u/ss. 452,
504 and 506 IPC and u/ss. 3(1)(x) (Substituted as 3(1)(r) by Act
No. 1 of 2016) and 3(1)(e) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Dismissed by High Court
– Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Offences under the Act not
established – Hence the charges under the Act, quashed – Charges
under IPC to be tried by competent Court.
s. 482 – Quashing of charge-sheet in part – Held: There is no
prohibition under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in part.
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989:
s.3(1)(x) (substituted as 3(1)(r) by Act No. 1 of 2016) –
Applicability of – Held: Basic ingredients of the offence u/s. 3(1)(r)
are that there is intentional insult or intimidation with intent to
humiliate a member of SC or ST and that such insult or intimidation
should have taken place at any place within public view – All the
insults and intimidations will not come within purview of the offence
under the Act – In the facts of the present case, the Act is not
applicable.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) 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 is thus
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 593
593
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations and
harassment and commit the offence as defined under Section 3 of
the Act. The Act is 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. [Para 10][600-D-E]
1.2 The charge-sheet filed in the present case was for an
offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section stands
substituted by Act No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016. The substituted
corresponding provision is Section 3(1)(r). The basic ingredients
of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as
“1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any
place within public view”. [Paras 11 and 12][600-E, G]
1.3 The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would
indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with
an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not
be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is
on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe. [Para 13][600-G-H; 601-A]
1.4 An offence under the Act would be made out when a
member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to
indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title
over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the
indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right
to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the
appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the
civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction
of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in
accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is
not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled
Caste. [Para 13][601-A-C]
1.5 Therefore, offence under the Act is not established
merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled
Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
595
belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are
litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of
abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If
such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under
Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out. [Para 18][603-D]
Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) SCC
OnLine SC 1104; Gerige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra
Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 12 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.