Intentional Insult, Intimidation Under SC/ST Act Must Be Made In Public: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside "Mechanical" Cognizance Order

While setting aside an order taking cognizance of an offence under Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Rajasthan High Court said that the provision requires that the intentional insult or intimidation takes place in public in the presence of other people.

In observing so, the high court said that in the present case, it was the complainant who had visited the petitioner (accused) at a location which was not a public place and there was no evidence of the remarks being made in public, and that the trial court and special judge failed to note this element.

The court was hearing a petition against an order of the Special Judge SC/ST Cases who had affirmed the order of the trial court which took cognizance of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act against the petitioner even though the police had submitted a negative final report pursuant to the complaint.

Taking note of the trial court's order a single judge bench of Justice Arun Monga in its order said, "Having thus reviewed the impugned order, it transpires that the cognizance order by the learned trial Court has been passed in the most mechanical manner without there being any application of mind. It is simply recorded that in view of the statements recorded of the complainant, the cognizance is being taken. There is no whisper or discussion of any kind qua the detailed negative Final Report which was filed by the prosecution".

For context, Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act states that a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view is liable to be punished.

The court thereafter referred to the high court's decision in Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal & ors. v. State of Rajasthan where it was held that in cases where a complaint/FIR was followed by a negative report, and subsequently followed by a protest petition, then while allowing the protest petition a Judicial Magistrate was legally bound to discuss the negative report and the order must contain sufficient reasons showing application of a judicious mind for disagreeing with the negative final report.

It thereafter said, "I am in respectful agreement with the views as expressed as aforesaid. Facts in present case are analogous and the above observations in Bhagwan Sahai ibid seem applicable here. I see no reason why the benefit of the same be not granted to the petitioner herein".

In the present case, the Court noted that as per the FIR, the complainant personally visited the petitioner and inquired about preparation of a false affidavit. During such visit, the petitioner allegedly made caste-based remarks in a sarcastic manner. The Complainant's statements recorded by the IO did not reveal that such remarks were made in public.

It was only subsequently that three additional witnesses testified that the petitioner had abused the complainant in public. However, complainant's statement to the IO indicated that these witnesses were neither present at the scene nor did they accompany the complainant.

"Both learned Courts failed to notice that Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act requires that the insult or intimidation be made in the presence of others at a public place. In the case in hand, the complainant visited the petitioner at a location that was not a public place, and there is no evidence that the petitioner's remarks were made in public. Thus, without such preliminary evidence, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is not substantiated," it said.

The Court further observed that there was no discussion of the negative report filed by the police, and referred to the Bhagwan Sahai Case which gave three reasons for why an order disagreeing with the negative final report must contain sufficient reasons showing application of mind

The high court in Bhagwan Sahai had said, “firstly, the Principles of Natural Justice demand and dictate that any order adversely affecting a right should be a speaking order…Secondly, since the cognizance order is a revisionable order, the Higher Judicial Authorities have a right to know the reasons which weighed in the mind of the Judicial Magistrate for disagreeing with the negative Final Report…Thirdly, it is a settled doctrine of law that justice should not only be done, but also must appear to be done…In case, such reasons are not stated, alleged offender may find it difficulty to question the validity of the reasoning…”

The high court had referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Sampat Singh v State of Haryana in which it was stated that the Magistrate must give reasons for disagreeing with the negative final report. In case, no such reasons were given, then the order would be unsustainable in the eyes of law.

The high court thereafter allowed the plea and set aside the orders of the trial court as well as the Special judge.

Case Title: Chhinder Singh v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 294

Click Here To Read/Download Order