Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Priaranjan @ Priyaranjan @ Mr. Ranjan & … vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 22 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:-
HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.
CRR 3966 OF 2022
PRIARANJAN @ PRIYARANJAN @ MR. RANJAN & ANR.& ANR.
VS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & Anr.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabir Kumar Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Sudarshana Srivastava, Adv.
For the Opposite : Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.
Party no. 2 Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Sumon Dey, Adv.
Mrs. Manasi Roy, Adv.
Last heard on : 10.02.2026
Judgement on : 22.04.2026
Uploaded on : 22.04.2026
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS:-
1.
This revisional application arises against an order dated August 17, 2022
passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, 1st Court, Howrah cum
Page 1 of 24
Judge special Court, SC/ST (POA) Act, Howrah whereby the petition filed by
the petitioners for discharge from the offences section 3(1)(r) & (s) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), 1989 in
connection with Special Case no.190/20 dated October 13, 2020 .
Brief facts of the case
2. The petitioner No.1 is a railway employee and petitioner no 2 is his wife and
both of them are the resident of a railway quarter situated in a four storied
building where the opposite party was also a resident and both of them had
lawful right to use the terrace. It is the case of the petitioner that on October
13, 2020, an altercation took place between two families over the use and
enjoyment of the terrace and as a result, both petitioner no.1 and 2
sustained injuries and they were treated on that day itself in the railway
hospital and the petitioner lodged a GDE on the same day at Belur Police
station being GDE No. 576 dated 13.10.2020.
3. The opposite party No. 2 initiated a FIR at Belur police Station Case No.
190/20 under section 341/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section
3(1)(r) & (s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. On completion of investigation a charge
sheet has been submitted under the aforesaid section in respect of the same
incident with certain false and concocted story. On completion of
investigation over the same, the charge sheet has been submitted against
the petitioner under section 341/323/506 /34 of the Indian Penal Code
read with section 3(1)( r)&(s) of the SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989 . The petitioners
thereafter filed an application for discharge on the ground of lack of
materials to attract any of the charges and it was an afterthought only to
Page 2 of 24
which has been turned down by the learned Special Court. Being aggrieved
thereby this revisional application has been filed for quashing the entire
proceeding pending before the learned Special Court.
Submission made by the petitioner
4. The learned advocate representing the petitioners argued that nowhere in
the complaint it was mentioned that the petitioners belongs to higher caste
than the opposite party or such abusive words were hurled in public place
and within the public view and lastly the complaint was filed as to the fact
that the petitioner abused them with the name of their caste, which are the
essential elements to be mentioned or spelt out in the petition of
complainant. It is further argued that to deal with the offences under section
341/323 of the Indian Penal Code it must be mentioned that the petitioner
wrongfully restrained the opposite party No. 2 or any member of his family
which could attract section 341 of the Indian penal code. In the written
complaint no description of assault on the complainant’s daughter was
mentioned and by whom. The incident arose out of a commotion occurred
between the family members of the petitioners and the opposite party No. 2
and pursuant to such self-same incident two General Diary entries were
lodged at Lilua police Station. The complaint lodged by the opposite party
No. 2 was entered as G.D.E No. 575 which finds reference in the substantive
part of the FIR. The counter complaint was registered as G.D.E No. 576
dated 13.10.20 and it manifest that both the parties approached the police
station immediately after the alleged incident which happened on the same
dates at around 6.30 a.m. It is argued that had any cognizable case
Page 3 of 24
disclosed in the G.D.E No. 575 lodged by the Opposite party no 2 the same
ought to have been registered as an FIR in view of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari versus Government
of U.P1.
5. The learned advocate draws attention of this court in course of argument
that the time of occurrence was not mentioned in the Formal FIR when
under the Police Regulation of Bengal it is mandatory to record the date and
time of occurrence of the alleged offence to enable proper assessment of the
incident and to prevent any possibility of interpolation or embellishment at a
later stage.
6. The unexplained omission of such a material particular raises a serious
doubt regarding the authenticity and veracity of the FIR. After filing of the
charge sheet in compliance with section 207 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 neither injury report has been supplied to the petitioner
nor it is mentioned as seized article in the column of the charge sheet.
7. The further argument advanced by the learned advocate that the essential
ingredients of an offence to be constituted under section 3(1)( r) & (s) of the
Act, 1989 are completely absent as there was no intentional insult or
intimidation with intent to humiliate in any place within the public view
which is sine qua non . That apart from the expression public view has been
consistently interpreted by judicial precedents, does not include mere
presence of family members of the complainant while the charge sheet
witnesses in their statements claiming to be present at the place of
1
(2014) 2 SCC 1
Page 4 of 24
occurrence are all relatives or family members of the complainant. Therefore
public view is not satisfied. The learned advocate relied upon the decisions
reported in , Karuppudayar vs. State & Ors2.;, Keshaw Mahto @
Keshaw Kumar Mahato vs. State of Bihar & Anr.3; Swaran Singh &
Ors. Vs. State & Anr.4;, GorigePentaiah vs, State of AP & Ors.5;
Darshan Singh Saini vs. Sohan Singh & Anr.6; Hitesh Verma Vs, State
of Uttarakhand & Anr.7; Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs. State of UP &
Anr.8; N.S. Madhanagopal & Anr. Vs. K. Lalitha9 ;, Manik Taneja &
Anr. State of Karnataka & Anr. 10.
Submission made by the Opposite party
8. The learned senior advocate Mr. Sourav Chatterjee on the other hand
argued that in GD No. 597 the time was 13:15 with regard to FIR and this
point was not raised before the learned court. The offence under the special
Act cannot be diluted merely because the complainant did not mention that
the petitioners belongs to higher caste than the complainant and in this
regard draws the attention of this court to the provision incorporated under
section 8(c) of the Act. It is submitted that when a complaint has been
lodged with the specific allegation of abuse with regard to the name of the
caste it is to be presumed that the accused was having personal knowledge
of the their caste for his family, the court shall presume that the accused
2
2025 SCC OnLine 215
3
SLP (Crl) No. 12144 of 2025
4
(2008) 8 SCC 435
5
(2009) 1 SCC (Criminal) 446
6
(2015) 14 SCC 570,
7
(2020) 10 SCC 710,
8
SLP (Crl) No. 1249 of 2023
9
SLP (Crl) No. 6039 of 2022
10
SLP (Crl) No. 6449 of 2014
Page 5 of 24
was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim unless the contrary is
proved. This is the rebuttable presumption which can be rebutted in course
of trial. The learned Senior advocate relied upon the decision of a three
Hon’ble judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashabhai Machindra
Adhagale vs State of Maharastra & Others11 where it was held that
caste of the accused if not mentioned in FIR for offence under section 3(1)(ix)
of SC/ST Act 1989 is not a ground to quash FIR . It is further argued that
an FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia .The investigating agency after
ascertaining the facts during the course of investigation to record that either
the accused belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and after the
formal opinion is formed that is to be placed before the Learned Court to
either accept or to take cognizance. In the aforesaid decision it was further
observed that after charge sheet is filed it is open to the accused to bring to
the notice of the court that the material do not show that the accused does
not belong to Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe .
9. The further argument advanced by the Learned Senior Counsel that the
alleged incident happened on the terrace which is open from all sides and it
was in broad day light hence was within public view and to that extent
sufficient materials are collected which must be assessed before the trial
court. In this regard he relied upon a decision reported in Kaptan Singh vs
state of Uttar Pradesh & Others12, where it was held by the Hon’ble
supreme Court that High court failed to appreciate and consider fact that
11
(2009) 3 SCC 789
12
(2021) 9 SCC 35
Page 6 of 24
there are very serious triable issues /allegations which are required to be
gone into and considered at the time of trial.
10. The further limb of argument advanced by the Learned Senior advocate is
with regard to the scope of discharge application and the court must
proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on
record by prosecution is true and evaluate material in order to determine
whether the facts emerging from the materials taken on their face value
disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute offence. In
this case the chargesheet has been submitted on the basis of the materials
collected in course of investigation and the discharge petition is rejected .So
there is no hazy situation for which any interference is necessary. It is
further argued that it was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Central Bureau of Investigation vs Arvind Khanna, reported in13
while setting aside the order of quashment passed by the High Court, that
the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C
exceeded its power after making assessment and recording the findings on
several disputed facts when the cognizance was taken of by a competent
court.
11. The learned Senior advocate further relied upon the decision of Central
Bureau of Investigation vs Arvind Khanna14; State of MP vs. Yogendra
Singh Jadon & Anr.15, Kamal ShivajiPokarnekar vs State of
13
(2019) 10 SCC 686
14
(2019) 10 SCC 686
15
(2020)12 SCC 588
Page 7 of 24
Maharastra & Ors.16;,Kaptan Singh vs State of U.P & Ors.17 and State
by Karnataka18, Lokayukta police Station, Bengaluru vs. M.R.
Hiremath. Accordingly, prayed for dismissing this revisional application.
Submission by Prosecution
12. The Learned prosecution also argued that in this case the statement of the
two daughters have been recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C and the
Investigating agencies have recorded various statements of the witnesses
which primarily supports the allegation made in the complainant. There is
injury report in the case diary and hence it is a fit case where the accused
persons must face the trial. The case Diary is produced before the court to
substantiate his contention.
Analysis
13. Heard the submissions. On careful perusal of the entire materials on
record at the outset it transpires that the petitioners did not challenge the
charge sheet and filed this application with a prayer challenging the order
passed by the Learned Special Court whereby the petition filed for discharge
was turn down. The proceeding emanated from a complaint lodged by the
present opposite party No. 2 against the present petitioners alleging assault
on his daughters who went to terrace and subsequently abused taking the
name of their community who belong to schedule caste. The complainant
mentioned lodging of a General Diary Entry in Belur police Station on 13
October 2020 which is numbered G.D.E No. 575 against the petitioner over
16
(2019) 14 SCC 350
17
2021 (9) SCC 35
18
(2019) 7 SCC 515
Page 8 of 24
the self-same incident. The complaint was lodged to file an F.I.R against the
petitioners on the basis of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The content of the said General Diary
was not mentioned but primarily it projects that no allegation was made
while filing the G.D Entry on the same day pertaining to any offence
committed by the petitioner under SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989
and in between lodging of General Diary and the written Complaint no
materials to suggest that any other incident happened. The investigation
started on the basis of the written complaint filed by the complainant and
the column in the Formal F.I.R “place of occurrence “was not filled up.
14. It can be gathered from the record as well as from the submission that the
present petitioners also lodged a General diary before Liluah Police Station
on the same date that is 13.10.2020 which was registered as G.D.E No.
576. The incident has been described by the petitioners as an altercation
between the two families over enjoying the right of use of terrace of the
residential building/quarter and there was a commotion and both parties
sustained minor injuries and the petitioners also were treated before the
Railway doctor. The G.D no. 575 and 576 on 13.10.20 apparently suggest
that almost same time both the G.D was lodged before police Station but in
course of investigation the Investigating authority remained silent about the
G.D lodged by the complainant. It is not clear the G.D was lodged before the
Lilua P.S. or Belur P.S. due to mentioning of two different Police Station.
15. In connection with the complaint lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on
completion of investigation the charge sheet was submitted against the
Page 9 of 24
present petitioner’s under section 341/323/506/34 of the Indian penal code
read with section 3(1)(r) & (s) of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities ) Act 1989.
The investigating agency found after visiting the place of occurrence and
collecting the injury report that a prima facie charge under the aforesaid
sections have been established against the accused persons. From the four
corners of the said charge sheet nothing is found which suggest that
because the complainant belongs to Schedule Caste community and the
present petitioners knowing fully well humiliated them taking the name of
the caste.
16. After filing of the charge sheet the petitioners filed an application with the
prayer for discharge and the learned court vide an order dated August 17,
2022 refused to allow such prayer. The learned court while passing such
order considered that the I.O collected the caste certificate of the opposite
party No.2 which discloses they belongs to “Charan” community and hence
prima facie it was established that they belong to Schedule Caste.
17. The learned court while refusing the prayer observed that the power under
section 227 of the Code is to confine itself within the record of the case and
hear the accused persons as well as prosecution on the materials. Section
227 itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of enquiry for the
purpose of discharging an accused which provides that the Judge shall
discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused person. In this context the ‘ground’ is not a
ground for conviction but the “ground” for putting the accused on trial. It is
not necessary to delve deep into various aspects and only to consider
Page 10 of 24
whether evidentiary materials on record if generally accepted, would
reasonably connect the accused with the crime.
18. The observation passed by the Learned Court is based upon the decisions
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad vs
Dilip Nathumal Chordia19 . In the light of the above law laid down it is to
be seen that how far the learned court was justified in arriving at such
observation that primarily enough materials are there to proceed with the
trial so far the charges under section 3(1) (r) & (s) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 are concerned.
19. In the case of Keshaw Mahto @ Keshaw Kumar Mahato vs. State of
Bihar & Anr. (supra) as relied upon on behalf of the petitioners, the
quashing application filed by the Accused was turned down by the High
court where the allegation was under various provisions of Indian Penal
Code along with section 3(1)( r)(s) of the SC/ST Act. It was observed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the written complaint no specific word was
uttered from the mouth of the accused. The Hon’ble Apex Court took note of
the decision of Shajan Sakaria vs The State of Kerala and Anr20.,
paragraph 55, where the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section
3(1)( r) of the SC/ST (POA) Act were laid down which were referred to.
“55. The basic ingredients to constitute the offence
under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are:
a. Accused person must not be a member of the
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;19
(1989) 1 SCC 715
20
2024 SCC On Line SC 2249Page 11 of 24
b. Accused must intentionally insult or intimidate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;
c. Accused must do so with the intent to humiliate such
a person; and
d. Accused must do so at any place within public
view.” (Emphasis supplied)
In paragraph 12, 13, 14, 15,and 16 it was elaborately discussed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court as follows;
“12. Section 3(1)(r) is attracted where the reason for
the intentional insult or intimidation by the accused is
that the person who is subjected to is a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In other words,
the offence under Section 3(1)(r) cannot stand merely
on the fact that the informant/complainant is a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,
unless the insult or intimidation is with the intention to
humiliate such a member of the community.
13. To put it briefly – first, the fact that the complainant
belonged to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe
would not be enough. Secondly, any insult or
intimidation towards the complainant must be on the
account of such person being a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
14. With a view to dispel any doubt and lend clarity,
we deem it appropriate to mention that even mere
knowledge of the fact that the complainant is aPage 12 of 24
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe is
not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r).
15. Further, for an offence to be made out
under Section 3(1)(s), merely abusing a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe would not be
enough. At the same time, saying caste name would
also not constitute an offence.
16. In other words, to constitute an offence
under Section 3(1)(s) it would be necessary that the
accused abuses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe “by the caste name” in any place
within public view. Thus, the allegations must reveal
that abuses were laced with caste name, or the caste
name had been hurled as an abuse.
17. What appears from the aforesaid is the element of
humiliation is present in Section 3(1)(s) as well. It has
to be gathered from the intentional insult towards the
caste, and the content. The content under Section
3(1)(s) are the abuses hurled at a person belonging to a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. However, the
intent with which the abuses were hurled must be
found to be denigrating towards the caste, resulting
into a feeling of caste-based humiliation.”
20. The learned advocate of the petitioners relied upon the decision of
GorigePentaiah versus State of A.P (supra) when it was held that-
“According the basic ingredients of 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989, the complainant
ought to have alleged that the appellant accused was not a member of the
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and he was intentionally insulted or
intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public
Page 13 of 24
view.” In this case in the complaint nothing was mentioned as to whetherthe appellants/ accused was not a member of SC or ST Community and he
intentionally insulted or humiliated the accused with the intent to
humiliate in a place within public view and the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that ‘When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the
complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the
appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified
leading to abuse of process of law’.
21. In order to buttress the above decision the learned senior advocate has
relied upon the decision of Ashabhai Machindra Adhagale vs State of
Maharastra (supra), where the Hon’ble Bench consisting of three Judges
of the Supreme Court on this issue held that in paragraph 10, 11 and 12,
which are as follows-
“10. It needs no reiteration that the FIR is not expected
to be an encyclopaedia. As rightly contended by learned
counsel for the appellant whether the accused belongs
to Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe can be gone into
when the matter is being investigated. It is to be noted
that under section 23(1) of the Act, The SC and ST (POA)
Rules, 1995 have been framed.
11. Rule 7 deals with the investigating officer. Under
Rule 7 investigation has to be done by an officer not
below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Page 14 of 24
12. After ascertaining the facts during the course of
investigation it is open to the investigating officer to
record that the accused either belongs to does not
belong to scheduled caste or Scheduled Tribe. After final
opinion is formed, it is open to the Court either to or
accept the same or take cognizance. Even if the charge
sheet is filed at the time of consideration of the charge, it
is open to the accused to bring to the notice of the court
that the materials do not show that the accused does
not belong to schedule caste or scheduled Tribe. Even if
charges framed at the time of trial materials can be
placed to show that the accused either belongs or does
not belong to Schedule caste or Schedule Tribe.”
Therefore if the complaint is silent about the caste of the accused persons
or even in the chargesheet that fact was not to the notice, ipso facto it
cannot be the ground for quashing.
22. Now considering the fact that in the F.I.R, the caste of the accused was
not mentioned in the written complaint, neither the investigating officer tried
to ascertain whether the accused persons belongs to higher caste than that
of the complainant nor while considering the application filed for discharge
the learned court dealt with the issue to ascertain such fact on the basis of
the materials collected in course of investigation. The scope of raising such
issue remains alive and can be taken in course of trial as held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore only on that point the power under
Page 15 of 24
section 482 cannot be exercised for setting aside the order refusing to
discharge the present petitioner.
23. In the light of the above, the contents of the complaint should be revisited
in order to see what materials exist on the face of the complaint to attract
the offences charged with. The lodging of GD entry before Belur police
Station or Liluah Police Station by both the parties unequivocally discloses
that an incident occurred on October 30, 2020 in the early morning but
certainly it did not contain any cognizable offence and this can be found
prima facie corroborated from the narration made before the Investigating
Officer. No whisper was made regarding insulting him with regard to his
caste. On giving a cursory glance to the other materials collected also
primarily nothing transpires regarding abuse made taking the name of their
caste or with an intention to insult any word was uttered maligning his
caste. It is glaringly visible that the germane of the dispute rooted over us
of therefore which can be found from the statement of the neighbour
recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C ,before whom the daughter narrated the
incident.
24. The incident happened on the open terrace of the four-storied building.
The GD lodged by the opposite party No. 2 contains the No. 575 received on
13:15 hours on 13.10.2020 at Belur Police Station but in the Formal F.I.R a
reference is given as 597 received at 15.30 hours at the Belur Police Sation.
The petitioner has stated that at Liluah Police Sation both of them lodged
the GDE which are numbered 575 and 576 respectively on 13.10.20 but no
contents of such GDE can be found from the case Diary. The suppression of
Page 16 of 24
the previous G.D. not only in the F.I.R but also in the statement made by
the complainant suggests that the allegation to incorporate the charges
under SC/ST POA Act, 1989 was afterthought.
25. In this regard the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate of the
petitioner in the case of Karuppudayar (supra) be looked into .It was
decided there that for constituting the offence under section 3(1)(r) of the
SC/ST (POA) Act, “it has to be established that the accused intentionally
insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled caste
or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within “Public View”. For a constituting an
offence under section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act 1987 Act it will be
necessary that the accused abuses any members of the Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view” .
26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the decision of Swaran Singh vs
State through the Standing Counsel (where the term any place within the
Public View was discussed). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision of
Hitesh Verma vs State of Uttarakhand (supra) also made the reference
of the case of Swaran Singh where the distinction between the expression
Public Place and “in any place within public view” was discussed and it was
held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn
outside a house ,and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane
outside the boundary wall ,then the lawn would certainly be a place within
the public view .On the contrary ,if the remark is made inside a building but
some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) were
there then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view .The
Page 17 of 24
Hon’ble Supreme Court further made the distinction of the expression
“place” ‘within public view’ means the place which should be open where the
members of the public can witness or hear the utterance made by the
accused to the victim.
27. In the present case the alleged incident happened in the early morning at 6
to 6:30 a.m and it is not mentioned that the petitioners uttered any word or
made any gesture to humiliate or insult his caste and any other persons
were present either in the terrace or in the adjacent building since the
complainant specifically averred that only his two daughters went to the
terrace and hearing their cry he went there. The building is four storied and
the incident happened on the terrace.
28. It is no more res integra that the court can at any point of time ascertain
the caste of the accused and merely because of not mentioning the said fact
in the F.I.R would not be the reason to quash the proceeding as decided by
the Hon’ble three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
AshabaiMachindraAdhagale (supra). In this case though till the discharge
petition was rejected no such ascertainment could be found to have been
raised by the prosecution regarding the caste of the petitioners/accused
person, that itself cannot be considered for quashing the entire proceeding.
29. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation (supra) as relied upon by
the Learned Senior advocate ,the petitioner sought for quashing of the F.I.R,
charge sheet and the order passed by the Learned ACJM whereby the
cognizance was taken in respect of an offence under section 35 read with
Page 18 of 24
section 3 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act,2010 .The Hon’ble
Apex Court set aside the order of quashing passed by the High court
considering that the High court recorded finding on several disputed facts
and allowed the petition .Further observed that the High court went into the
most minute details ,on the allegations made by the appellant CBI and
hence exceeded its power while exercising inherent jurisdiction. In this case
the charge sheet has been filed under section 341/323 /506 IPC read with
section 3(1)(r) & (s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act ,1989 and so far the allegations
under the SC/ST Act is concerned the F.I.R prima facie shows no materials
exists to attract the said provision and the materials collected in course of
investigation primarily do not suggest any ingredients to attract the said
section as no word was uttered which can be said to have laced with castiest
remark. The root cause of the dispute pertains to use of terrace for which
the opposite party no. 2 paid rent, and as both the parties lodged General
Diary on the same date over the same dispute, there left no room to doubt
that no incident happened but question whether sufficient materials exists
prima facie to prove the allegation made to malign the petitioner with their
caste ought to have been considered by the Learned Special Court.
30. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2019) 7 SCC 515 State by
Karnataka Lokayukta ,Police station ,Bangaluru vs M.R Hiremath
where the discharge application was turned down under section 239 CrPC
and the entire proceedings was quashed and that order was set aside by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held that the law does not permit a mini trial
at this stage .In the said decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred the
Page 19 of 24
decision of State of T.N vs N.Suresh Rajan and Others21 wherein also it
was held that at the stage of hearing discharge application the probative
value of the materials has to be gone into and it is to be considered whether
there is ground for presuming that the offence has committed but not
whether a ground for conviction is made out .
31. In the decision of State of Madhya Pradesh vs Yogendra Singh Jadon
and Anr.22 the Hon’ble Apex court held that the power under section 482
Cr.P.C cannot be exercised where prima facie case stands established and
allegations are required to be proved in court of law. The High court
examined the issue as to whether offence under Section 420 and 120B IPC
was made out at pre-trial stage .In the case of Kaptan Singh (supra) it was
held that when proceedings are at the stage when statements are
recorded,evidence is collected and charge sheet is filed after conclusion of
investigation /inquiry ,restraint to be exercised by High Court while
exercising inherent jurisdiction.
32. In (Suman Mishra & Ors vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.)23
referred the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex court in Iqbal alias
Bala and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others24 which is “In
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into many
other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and
above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to
read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
21
(2014) 11 SCC 709
22
(2020) 12 SCC 588
23
2025 INSC 203
24
(2023) 8 Supreme Court Cases 734
Page 20 of 24
Section 482CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only
to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall
circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation”.
33. In this case both the parties being employee of the official quarter resided
there and no prior complaint was lodged against the petitioner over the
issue of humiliation to the complainant or his family members taking their
caste name and nothing ascribed the role of the complainant to utter any
word against the complainant or to his daughters. The specific allegation
made by the daughters was assault when they were sitting on a portion of
the terrace since the petitioners used to pay rent and it was only averred
that the petitioners took the name of their caste. This court cannot brush
aside the fact that initially a G.D was lodged by the complainant and
subsequently made this written complaint in order to incorporate the
charges under the provision of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and the context of
G.D was totally suppressed. Therefore the complaint and the subsequent
materials from case diary clearly reveals that in order to strengthen the case
of assault on their daughter and to incorporate an injury report this
complaint was lodged so it was afterthought .
34. The scope and ambit of the power under 482 to be exercised by the High
court is also settled in a catena of decisions where it was held that every
High Court under this power to act as ex debito justitiae ,to do real and
substantial justice in order to prevent abuse of the process of the court and
Page 21 of 24
or to secure the ends of justice. However since the power is wide have to be
used sparingly, carefully and with great caution.
35. In the instant case on the face of the complaint it suggest that it was
lodged only to incorporate the charges against the petitioners under the
provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act ,1989 even though a prior General Diary was
lodged on the same date in respect of the self-same incident . Despite
mentioning the GD number the Investigating authority did not bother to
enquire about the contents of the same. While recording statement the
complaint remained silent about any specific word uttered which is laced
with castiest remarks.
36. It has been settled in the decision of Lalita Kumari vs State of U.P25
that if a complaint discloses any cognizable offence an FIR must be
registered immediately and it is mandatory to lodge such F.I.R and whether
the allegations are false or not relevant at that stage but if no cognizable
case is made out in the information given then the F.I.R need not have to
registered and police can conduct a preliminary enquiry in order to
ascertain whether any cognizable offence has been committed .In this case
even after lodging of such GD, the FIR was not registered which again
suggest that no cognizable offence was made out therefore by way of lodging
the subsequent FIR the charges levelled under the provisions of SC/ST Act
1989 which is clearly an afterthought and made to put more weightage to
the allegations.
25
(2014) 2 SCC 1
Page 22 of 24
37. It is reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex court that the criminal law ought not
become a platform for the initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle
personal scores and vendettas .When it is glaringly visible that the F.IR was
afterthought and even if accept in toto it would not satisfy the ingredients to
constitute an offence under SC/ST (POA) Act,1989 and hence if the
proceeding allowed to be continued further it would be an abuse of the
process of court.
Conclusion
38. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Learned
Magistrate refusing to discharge the accused from the charges levelled
against him so far the allegation under section 3 (1)( r) & (s) of the Act of
1989 is concerned and hence question of quashing the entire proceeding
does not arises.
39. Hence from the above discussions and considering the laws laid down in
this regard and considering that the allegations as discussed above are not
sustainable, this court is inclined to allow the prayer .
40. Therefore this CRR is hereby allowed without any costs. All other
connected applications if any stands disposed of.
41. The order passed by the learned Special Court is hereby set aside.
42. The petitioners are discharged from the charges under section 3(1)(r)& (s)
of the Act 1989 .Since the rest of the charges are triable by a court of
Magistrate, the Learned Special Court is directed to send down the record to
Page 23 of 24
the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ,Howrah for taking appropriate steps
to proceed with the trial with respect to the charges levelled in the charge
sheet under the various provisions of Indian Penal Code.
43. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to
the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
[CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]
Page 24 of 24
