Delhi High Court (JULY 31, 2001) 2001 (TLS)125288 2001-DLT-93-741 :: 2001-AD (Del)-7-251 RAM NATH SACHDEVA Vs. Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi K. S. GUPTA ( 1 ) IN this petition filed under Section 482 criminal PROCEDURE CODE the petitioners seek setting aside of the orders dated 16/12/2000 and 11/01/2001 passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate and also the" order dated 25/1/2001 passed by an additional Sessions Judge dismissing C. R. No. 2/2001 preferred against said two orders. ( 2 ) FACTS giving rise to this petition lie in narrow compass. On 16/9/2000, prakash Chand Panwan made a complaint to Police on the basis whereof FIR No. 855/2000 under section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 was registered against the petitioner. On challan being. filed, by the order dated 16/12/2000 the Metropolitan Magistrate took, the view that in fact offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act ) was prima facie made made out and as this offence was exclusively triable by special court he sent the file to Sessions judge for, assigning , it to appropriate court. However, by the order dated 5/1/2001, Additional Sessions Judge whom the case was assigned, sent the same back to concerned Metropolitan Magistrate as committal was improper in as much as provision of section 07 criminal Procedure Cocde was not complied with. After case was received back. , by the order dated 11/1/2001 the Metropolitan Magistrate issued. non- bailable warrants, against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed Crl. Revision 2/2001 against both the said orders dated 16/12/2000 and 11/1/2001 which came to be dismissed by an Additional Sessions Judge by the order dated 25/1/2001. This is how the matter is before this court. ( 3 ) SUBMISSION , advanced by Sh S. S. Gandhi ,for petitioner was that (1) taking the allegations and complaint as they are, without adding or substracting anything, case under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act was not made out as the utterance which is allegedly attributed to the petitioner, was not made "within public view and (2) under rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes; (Prevention of Atrocities ) Rules, 1995 an offence committed under, the Act has to be investigated by. an appointed police officer not below the rank of Deputy Super intendent of Police but the investigation in this case was conducted by the officers; much below that rank and such an investigation cannot be made the basis to fasten criminal liability under said section 3 (1) (x) against the petitioner. Reliance was placed on the decisions in M. Niranjan Reddy and others vs. State of A. P. 2000 Cr. L. J. 3125 and E. Krishnan nayanar , vs. Dr. M. A. Kuttappan , Member. Kerala legislative Assembly and other s 1977 CRL. L. J 2036. ( 4 ) COPY of the complaint dated, 16/9/2000 addressed to SHO PS Saraswati Vihar lodged by said prakash Chand Panwan is placed on page, 28 of the file. It is alleged therein that he alongwith Morcha Secretary visited the house of petitioner who is a Municipal Councillor, at 49. Chander Lok for redressing the grievances of common people. The petitioner threw away -the written papers of grievances, thrashed and pushed him outside the house and insulted by using the words against his caste "neech" "kamina" "chura chamar". Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act under which cognizance was taken by the order dated 16/12/2000 which is material, runs as under : "3 (1) whoever, not being a member or a scheduled Caste or a Scheduled,tribe -. (x)intentionally insults: or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to 5 years and with fine. " ( 5 ) IN the site plan (copy at page 44) the incident is shown to have taken place at mark "a" inside House No,. 49, Chander Lok. In his statement under section 161. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE Shashi pal, Morcha secretary also stated that occurrence had taken place inside the said house of petitioner. Thus, as per the prosecution case, only the complainant who was accompanied by Shashi Pal, was present inside the house at the time the petitioner allegedly insulted him by uttering the remarks as noted in complaint. In my view, such insult: not being "within public in view" would not attract said clause (x) of Section 3 (1) of the Act. Thus, as per the prosecution case, only the complainant who was accompanied by Shashi Pal, was present inside the house at the time the petitioner allegedly insulted him by uttering the remarks as noted in complaint. In my view, such insult: not being "within public in view" would not attract said clause (x) of Section 3 (1) of the Act. As laid down in the decision in State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others. AIR 1992 SC 604 one of the categories wherein power under section 482 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE can be exercised is where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint even if they are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. Therefore, aforesaid order dated 16/12/2000 taking cognizance,. under section 3 (1) (x) passed by Metropolitan Magistrate as also order dated 25/1/2001 parsed by Additional sessions Judge declining to interfere with the magistrate s order , deserve to be quashed. Decision in (E . Krishnan Nayanar s case (supra) has no applicability to the. facts of this case as the issue involved therein was whether an offence under section 3 (1) (x) could be said to have been made out against a person who had uttered derogatory remarks in a public meeting against , "another person not even present there. ( 6 ) COMING to second limb of argument referred to above, in my opinion, there may not be the violation of Rule, 7 as cognizance of said- offence was taken by ; the court itself In m. Niranjan Reddy s case (suprat the chargesheet under section 3 (1) (x) was filed on the basis of investigation made"by a Circle, Inspector and not the Deputy Superintendent which is not the case here. ( 7 ) FOR the foregoing discussion, while allowing petition, the orders dated 16/12/2000 and dated 25/1/2001 are set aside. Since challan was filed under aforementioned section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 the Metropolitan Magistrate would proceed in the matter in accordance with law. --- *** --- .