Allowed

Chetanmani Adil v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jun 2021WPCR/183/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to register FIR for caste atrocity under SC/ST Act. Court quashed illegal preliminary inquiry, holding an FIR must be registered outright if allegations disclose a cognizable offense, citing Lalita Kumari and Union of India v. Maharashtra. Petitioner directed to approach Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed with liberty to file complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate First Class.

Chetanmani Adil Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

Page 1 of 5

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPCR No. 183 of 2018

¶5

Chetanmani Adil S/o S/o Late Shri Jagdish Ram Adil Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Neodihi, P. S. Dharsivha, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., ---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Superintendent Of Police, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.,

¶9

Station House Officer, Ajak, Kalibadi, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

President, Scheduled Caste/ Tribe Commission Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Priyranjan, Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Anupam Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate. For State : Mr. Rakesh Sahu, Dy. Govt. Adv.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board

¶15

21-6-2021

¶16

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/complainant against illegality and irregularity act committed by the respondent authorities i.e., respondents No. 3 and 4 for not registering the FIR against respondent No.5.

¶17

The brief facts, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was insulted, abused and humiliated by respondent No.5 by his caste in public place which is an offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act, 1989”). The petitioner is a member belonging to Scheduled Caste and he is Satnami by caste which is

¶18

Page 2 of 5

¶19

defined in Article 341 of the Constitution of India. The Government formulated scheme for helping persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other backward community by providing subsidy for doing their business. The petitioner for his dairy business, has applied for loan from Punjab National Bank, Anupam Nagar, Raipur on 20-1-2018. Respondent No.5 insulted and abused the petitioner being a member of scheduled caste and also threw him out by peon. The staff members of the Bank have also witnessed the said incident, therefore, on the basis of the incident, he filed a complaint before respondent No.3/Station House Officer, AJAK, Kalibali, Raipur (CG) against respondent No.5, but no action has been taken by respondent No.3. When no action has been taken by respondent No.3f on the petitioner's complaint, then petitioner made a complaint against respondent No.5 before respondents No. 2 and 4 with regard to the aforesaid act committed by respondent No.5. Since no action has been taken by the respondents No. 1 to 4 authorities, the petitioner approached this court by filing this writ petition (Cr) for registration of FIR against respondent No.5.

¶20

On 26-2-2020 this court directed the State counsel to seek instructions and in pursuance of the direction of the court, respondents No. 1 to 4/State filed their reply in which they have submitted that a preliminary inquiry was conducted on the basis of complaint made by the petitioner on 22-1-2018. After inquiry it has been found that the allegations made against respondent No.5 are false and fabricated, therefore, no further investigation is required in the matter. A copy of the enquiry report has also been annexed along with return as Annexure R/5.

¶21

Complainant made complaint before respondent authorities on 22-1-2018 which reads as under:

¶22

**fuosnu gS fd fo"k;kafdr lanfHkZr i= dk voyksdu djus dk d"V djsa ftlds ek?;e ls vkosnd us vukosnd ds fo:) tkfr lwpd

¶23

Page 3 of 5

¶24

xkyh xq¶rku djus ds laca/k esa ys[k fd;k gS A mDr f'kdk;r i= dks vkosnd us ofj"B dk;kZy; esa djus ij mDr f'kdk;r i= dks Fkkuk vtkd ds mi fujh{kd ts0,y0 /kzqo ds }kjk fd;k x;k gS A tkap vuqdze esa vkosnd o vukosnd ,oa lHkh xokgksa dk dFku dh Nk;kizfr ,oa tkap izfrosnu layXu gS A ftlls mDr f'kdk;r i= dks i`Fkd ls tkap dh vko';drk ugh gS A yksdy f'kdk;r i= dks lnjh f'kdk;r i= esa layXu fd;k x;k gS A

¶25

lEiw.kZ tkap es vkosnd dks vukosnd }kjk _.k cSad Ldhe esa mi;qDr ugh gksus ls _.k nsus ls euk djus ls {kqC) gksdj tkfrxr ekeys esa Qlkus ds xjt ls viuh tkfr dks vk/kkj cukdj c<+k p<+kdj fujk/kkj f'kdk;r fd;k gS A vkosnd }kjk yxk;s x;s vkjksi vizekf.kr ik;s tkus ls yks0 f'k0 i= dks ulrhc) fd;k tkuk mfpr izfrr gksrk gS A

¶26

izfrosnu lknj iszf"kr gS^^ A

¶27

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court and prayed for following reliefs:-

¶28

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct police authority to lodge FIR against respondent No.5.

¶29

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to record statement of Devendra Nirmalkar and Awesh Sheikh.

¶30

10.3 That this Hon'ble may be further pleased to pass any other consequential and other orders/ writs which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶31

From perusal of reliefs sought, it is quite clear that the petitioner wants that on the basis of complaint, FIR should be registered against respondent No. 5 Priyranjan, Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Anupam Nagar under the Act, 1989.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the preliminary enquiry conducted by the respondent, is not permissible as per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶33

Page 4 of 5

¶34

Union of India Vs. State of Maharashtra & others¹ , which reads as under:-

¶35

“68. The direction has also been issued that the D.S.P. should conduct a preliminary inquiry to find out whether allegations make out a case under the Atrocities Act, and that the allegations are not frivolous or motivated. In case a cognisable offence is made out, the FIR has to be outrightly registered, and no preliminary inquiry has to be made as held in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. [(2014) 2 SCC 1] by a Constitution Bench. There is no such provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for preliminary inquiry or under the SC/ST Act, as such direction is impermissible. Moreover, it is ordered to be conducted by the person of the rank of D.S.P. The number of D.S.P. as per stand of Union of India required for such an exercise of preliminary inquiry is not available. The direction would mean that even if a complaint made out a cognizable offence, an FIR would not be registered until the preliminary inquiry is held. In case a preliminary inquiry concludes that allegations are false or motivated, FIR is not to be registered in such a case how a final report has to be filed in the Court. Direction 79.4 cannot survive for the other reasons as it puts the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in a disadvantageous position in the matter of procedure vis-a-vis the complaints lodged by members of upper caste, for later no such preliminary investigation is necessary, in that view of matter it should not be necessary to hold preliminary inquiry for registering an offence under the Atrocities Act of 1989. ”

¶36

From the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that before registration of FIR under the Act, 1989, no preliminary enqiury is required, therefore, initiation of preliminary enquiry conducted by the respondent (Annexure R/1) is illegal and bad in law, which is liable to be quashed, accordingly, it is quashed. From perusal of relief sought, it is quite clear that the petitioner through his complaint dated 221-2018, wants to register the offence against respondent No. 5, for which the petitioner has remedy of filing a complaint

¶37

1 (2020) 4 SCC 761

¶38

Page 5 of 5

¶39

before the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.

¶40

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others² , has examined the issue holding that the petitioner has remedy of filing of complaint before the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court has again considered and decided the issue in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and M. Subramaniam & another Vs. S. Janaki & another³ .

¶41

Considering the facts and materials on record and in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the above cited judgments, the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class having jurisdiction over the place of offence and in-turn Magistrate shall follow the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

¶42

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case whether the complaint discloses any criminal offence or not.

¶43

In view of the above, the instant writ petition is allowed with liberty granted in favour of the petitioner to file complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶46

Raju

¶47

2 (2008) 2 SCC 409

¶48

3 (2020) 16 SCC 728

Chetanmani Adil v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetanmani Adil v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratnesh Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gram Panchayat Mangla (B), Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mitali Sahu @ Fatima Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Tandan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh