SC/ST Act | Offensive Statement Must Be Judged Based On Standards Of Reasonable Man, Not On Views Of Hypersensitive Person: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR lodged under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act) and IPC for allegedly passing casteist remarks against an IPS Officer and promoting enmity between different groups.
The accused stated to be an activist had posted a comment on social media about the police atrocities along with video clips of alleged torture against an arrested person.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "The statement in question, on the basis of which the FIR has been registered against the accused person(s), must be judged on the basis of what reasonable and strong-minded person will think of the statement, and not on the basis of the views of hypersensitive persons who scent danger in every hostile point of view and are gullible to such assertions."
"At best, it is only 'views' or 'expression of feeling' that burst out in the spurt of moment, in solidarity of the alleged atrocities meted out to Rahul at the hands of policemen. Having said so and culminating all the above factual aspects, the ingredients of Section 504/120-B IPC or for that matter, Section 3(1)(r) & (u) of the Act cannot be said to be made out against the petitioner inasmuch as it is not even mentioned that the petitioner had intimidated or threatened the respondent No.3 (IPS Officer) or anyone else," the bench added.
The plea for quashing FIR was filed by one, Jitender Jatasra, made co-accused in the FIR registered under the Information Technology Act, 2008, promoting enmity and under Section 3(1)(r) & (u) of of the SC/ST Act, by the Charkhi Dadri police.
Jatasra had challenged the FIR and chargesheet in August 2021. He had shared a video of alleged police atrocities in which the main accused named Rahul made some allegations against the police, especially against the IPS officer.
He stated to have shared the video clip with the following comment:-
"When general public will get same courage/enthusiasm; the IPS/IAS will not get place, who day and night commit wrong acts with the public”
After examining the statement, the Court said, "From a bare reading of the FIR, it is nowhere alleged that the respondent No.3 is a member of SC/ST community and the petitioner belong to a caste other than SC/ST and being as such, the petitioner was having knowledge of respondent No.3 belonging to such reserved caste. How the police came to know that the person speaking or appearing in the video-clip is Rahul s/o Satbir even specifying his residential address and caste to which he belongs? In general, the complainant/victim turns up to the police station with all details of the accused person as against in the present case, the ASI – who is the complainant without any prior investigation or enquiry about the authenticity of the video clip or the person allegedly appearing in the video-clip, candidly and accurately mentioned the name of Rahul in the FIR."
The bench added that this showed the pre-conception and pre-determined mindset of the police and particularly respondent No.3 (IPS Officer) to implicate the accused persons.
Justice Moudgil highlighted that in legal parlance, Section 3(1)(r) & (u) of the SC & ST Act can be invoked only when an accused person intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, by words either written or spoken or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise and promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes.
The contents of the FIR nowhere suggest that the petitioner used any casteist remarks indicating the name of respondent No.3 in a public place. Neither does the FIR show that casteist words were uttered by the petitioner or the main accused Rahul, that too by especially naming respondent No.3 or any other officer, the judge added.
The Court said that even a layman, if not an Officer of IPS rank, can easily comprehend that the comments made by the petitioner cannot be termed to be with a view to insult or intimidate the IPS Officer intentionally or to promote the feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against him or police department as a whole.
On Invocation of Section 153-A IPC (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), the Court said, "the action of the accused person/petitioner did not cause any enmity between the two groups nor such comment was made with the intention of causing the said enmity between the two religion/community/group inasmuch as the provision would become applicable only where enmity is caused on grounds of religion, race, place of birth or any other grounds whatsoever as per Section 153-A IPC."
It added that the intention to cause disorder or incite the people to violence is the sine qua non to make out an offence under Section 153-A IPC and the prosecution prima facie has to prove the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused.
The Court emphasised that the petitioner or the main accused Rahul in their comments on Facebook, "have not referred to even a single community, let alone to two communities for the purpose of Sections 153-A or 505 IPC. "Public tranquility" under Section 153A of the IPC does not mean that the accused's speech must merely affect public serenity, but it must give rise to violence or an insurrection."
Furthermore, it said that the reply filed by the respondents is totally silent as to how the petitioner was involved in misrepresentation or suppression of material facts and obtained any type of licence for publishing his comment, by the Certifying Authority which may attract penal provisions under Section 71 of the Information Technology Act and as such, it seems that the said provision has been added by the police only with an intention to ameliorate their impaired stand.
In light of the above, the plea was allowed and the FIR along with the chargesheet was quashed.
Mr. PK Rapria, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Pawan Jhnda, AAG Haryana
Jitender Jatasra v. State of Haryana & Ors.
2024 LiveLaw (PH) 168