Partly allowed

Parmender Singh Rawat v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Nov 2023CRM-M/47745/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged quashing of FIR involving rash driving and caste-based insults. Court held Sections 279 and 337 IPC require trial evidence. Quashed charges for mischief (IPC 427) and caste atrocity (SCSTPOA) due to lack of intent and attribution of words to petitioner.

What did the court decide?

FIR quashed in part; Sections 427 IPC and Sections 3(x), 3(s), 4 SCSTPOA charges drop. Trial to proceed for Sections 279/337 IPC.

Parmender Singh Rawat Vs State of Punjab and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

CRM-M-47745-2023

��

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

¶5

AT CHANDIGARH

¶6

CRM-M-47745-2023 (O&M)

¶7

Reserved on: 03.11.2023 Pronounced on: 20.11.2023

¶8

Parmender Singh Rawat ... Pe��oner(s)

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Punjab & another …Respondent (s)

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶12

Present:Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Chetan Mi*al, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pawan Narang, Advocate and Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate for the pe��oner(s). Mr. Gaurav Garg Duriwala, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶13

¶14

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶15

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta-on	Sec-ons
41	5.5.2023	Division No.3,	279, 337, 427 IPC and Sec�on 3(x) & 4 of the
		District Police	Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
		Commissionerate,	(Preven�on of Atroci�es), Act, 1989, (Later on
		Ludhiana	Sec�ons 3(x) & 4 deleted and Sec�on 3(s) of the SCSTPOA added).

¶16

Seeking quashing of the FIR, cap�oned above, registered because the pe��oner was driving the vehicle and another co-accused, Bhawna Gupta, a journalist, and one Mritunjay, a Cameraman, who were also si?ng in it, has come up before this Court under Sec�on 482 CrPC by asser�ng that the accident was not due to his fault and there is no averment in the FIR that he had used the alleged words, prohibited under Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Preven�on of Atroci�es), Act, 1989 a@er now termed as SCSTPOA.

¶17

The prosecu�on’s case is based on the statement made by one Gagan, which led to the registra�on of the FIR cap�oned above. The copy of FIR translated in English is annexed as Annexure P-1, and neither of the par�es disputes its transla�on. The contents of the FIR read as follows: -

¶18

ANJU RANI 2023.11.22 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-47745-2023

��

“Statement of Gagan wife of Rajinder Kumar resident of Balmiki Colony Ludhiana aged 50 years. Stated that I am resident of the said address and am a housewife. Today, on 05.05.2023 I alongwith Neelam Rani Resident of 991, Near Balmiki Mandir Chowk Division No. 3 and Sharda Resident of Ghaa� Mohalla, Ludhiana were going to the inaugura�on of the new Mohalla Clinic by Chief Minister Bhagwant Maan at Mohalla Harcharan Nagar and were ge?ng down from the e-Riksha near Shingaar Cinema crossing, and immediately upon ge?ng down, a car driver while driving carelessly hit me from one side and while I was trying to defend myself; my right hand was injured due to the impact of the vehicle and due to the impact of the vehicle my mobile phone brand Samsung Galaxy fell down from my hand and was broken. On reading the number of the vehicle I found it to be UP-16-CD-6327 of Innova make Color White. The driver of the vehicle started arguing with me and when I asked to the driver of the vehicle that why did you hit the vehicle into me and because of being hit by your vehicle, I have been injured and the phone of a poor has been broken. On this, alongwith the car driver, another man and a woman also came there and they alongwith the car driver started abusing me and the woman started saying " Tum Neech Jaa� waley chamaar logon ka yahi kaam hai, tum log gaadi walon se paisa aithne ke liye kisi vi had tak gir sakte ho " and a@er saying this when I objected to it a lot of people gathered there and a@er a while your police party reached the spot. I came to know the name of the driver of the car as Parminder Singh Rawat, the name of the other person who argued as Mritunjay Kumar and the women who u*ered caste indica�ve words as Bhawna. That the driver of the said car while driving recklessly rammed the car into me and caused me injury and caused damage to my mobile and the car passenger Bhawna insulted me by publically using caste indica�ve words against my caste and I may be provided jus�ce by taking suitable ac�on against them as per law. I have got recorded my statement with you in presence of my known Neelam Rani & Sharda, gone through, it is correct. Sd/Gagan”.

¶23

Pe��oner’s grievance is two-fold. Firstly, the pe��oner had met the complainant for the first �me in his life in a place he had visited for his job profile as a driver of the vehicle in ques�on and how would he know the caste of the complainant? As such, there was no ques�on of his knowing the complainant’s caste, and even as per the FIR, the complainant did not a*ribute the caste words spoken by the pe��oner. His next stand is that even if his vehicle had met with an accident, by no stretch of the imagina�on, it can be presumed that the pe��oner inten�onally caused the accident, foreseeing that by such an accident, the person that would be hit would be belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. The Second grievance is that no case under the Motor Vehicles Act is made out.

¶24

ANJU RANI 2023.11.22 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-47745-2023

��

It would be appropriate to refer to the FIR to analyze the grievance described above. The allega�ons as per the FIR are that on May 05, 2023, when the complainant/respondent No.2, along with her neighbors, had gone for the inaugura�on of the new mohalla clinic, and when they were descending from an e-rickshaw, a car hit her which was being driven carelessly. In the process of saving her life, her right hand got injured, and even her mobile phone fell from her hand and broke. She pointed out the vehicle in ques�on was an SUV Innova. As per FIR, a@er that, the vehicle’s driver started arguing with her. When she ques�oned him that why he hit her with his vehicle because of which she was injured and her phone was broken, the vehicle’s driver and another man and woman who were in the vehicle came down and started abusing her. As per informant, the woman who was si?ng in Car, aributed words “ Tum neech jaa� waley chamaar logon ka yahi kaam hai, tum log gaadi walon se paise ainthne ke liye kisi vi had tak gir sakte ho” . On hearing these words, the complainant objected, and many people gathered there, and in between, the police party reached the spot. She later stated that the person who had also argued with her, si?ng in the car, was named Mritunjay, and the other lady who had uered cas�st words was named Bhawna.

¶29

Based on these allega�ons, the police registered FIR, i.e., for driving any vehicle in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life punishable under Sec�on 279 IPC, due to a rash and negligent act causing hurt to a woman and endangered personal safety offense punishable under Sec�on 337 IPC and wrongfully commi*ed mischief by causing loss for more than Rs.50 punishable under Sec�on 427 IPC. In addi�on to that, FIR was registered under Sec�ons 3(x) and Sec�on 4 of SCSTPOA. It is relevant to men�on here that insul�ng a person belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by caste name in any place with public view is punishable under The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Preven�on of Atroci�es), Act, 1989 [SCSTPOA].

¶30

The complainant is opposing the pe��on on the grounds that the pe��oner has raised a disputed ques�on of fact which cannot be gone into in a pe��on under Sec�on 482 CrPC for the reason that the truthfulness of the allega�ons has to be ascertained and decided at the �me of trial by leading evidence. It is further argued that this Court cannot conduct the mini trial while deciding the pe��on under Sec�on 482 CrPC. It is further stated that offences under SCSTPOA are heinous and cannot be quickly quashed. The respondents have also referred to judicial precedents in the reply, which are se*led principles of law and cannot be disputed.

¶31

The State has also filed a separate reply through the Assistant Commissioner of Police. The main objec�on of the State is that the inves�ga�on is con�nuing, and if this Court quashes the FIR, it can be throa�ng the inves�ga�on.

¶32

I have heard counsel for the pe��oner, complainant, and State and reviewed

¶33

the record.

¶34

ANJU RANI 2023.11.22 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-47745-2023

��

It is undisputed that the pe��oner was driving the vehicle carrying the two media personnel, and he was doing the role of a driver and nothing more than that. It is undisputed that the accident occurred suddenly, and the pe��oner did not inten�onally hit the vehicle, knowing the vic�m's caste. Whether the accident occurred due to an error of judgment, rash or negligent driving, or the vic�m's negligence, vehicle’s fault or road condi�ons is a ma*er of trial. Regarding quashing of FIR under Sec�ons 279 & 337 IPC concerned, this can only be done by scru�nizing the evidence by the trial court at the �me of issuance of no�ces of acquisi�on, and if such no�ces are issued, and the trial commences only at the �me of apprecia�on of evidence during the trial. In the exercise of powers vested under Sec�on 482 CrPC, this court cannot entertain the disputed ques�on of whether the accident occurred due to an error of judgment resul�ng from rash and negligent driving or the complainant's fault. Consequently, the prayer regarding the quashing of FIR under Sec�ons 279 IPC & 337 IPC cannot be entertained, and qua those sec�ons, the quashing pe��on cannot be entertained.

¶39

Now, another fundamental legal ques�on that arises is whether FIR can be quashed in part?

¶40

In Lovely Salhotra v. State NCT of Delhi,

¶41

[3]. …The High Court was wrong in holding that the F.I.R. cannot be quashed in part and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellants - herein cannot be allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 - herein only on the ground that the inves�ga�on against co-accused is s�ll pending…

¶42

In Hitesh Verma v. The State of U*arakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, a threemember bench of Supreme Court had quashed the Chargesheet in part, and held as follows,

¶43

[24]. In view of the above facts, we find that the charges against the appellant under Sec�on 3(1)(r) of the Act are not made out. Consequently, the charge-sheet to that extent is quashed. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

¶44

[25]. The FIR in respect of other offences will be tried by the competent Court in accordance with law along with the criminal case11, though separately ini�ated, for the reason that it relates to interparty dispute and is in respect of same subject ma*er of property, despite of the fact that two different dates of the incident have been provided by the par�es.

¶45

In the light of these judicial precedents, an FIR can be quashed even in part provided it can be legally quashed.

¶46

As far as the offence under Sec�on 427 IPC regarding “Mischief causing damage to the amount of fi@y rupees” is concerned, it relates to the damage of a mobile phone that had fallen because of the impact of an accident. Sec�on 425 IPC defines ‘Mischief’

¶47

ANJU RANI 2023.11.22 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-47745-2023

��

and uses the word inten�on and states that whoever, with intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person, causes the destruc�on of any property or any such change in any property or the situa�on thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or u�lity or affects it injuriously, commits “mischief.”

¶52

It would be a travesty of jus�ce to arrive at a finding of a prima facie case that the pe��oner had caused impact with the vehicle with the inten�on or knowledge that by causing an accident, the phone that the vic�m might be carrying would fall, which in turn would cause a loss of more than Rs.50. Thus, by such an imagina�on, the ingredients of mischief could not have been invoked against the pe��oner. Even if all allega�ons of causing damage to the phone are taken to be truthful, it will not cons�tute any offence punishable under Sec�on 427 IPC; as such, the FIR for an offence under Sec�on 427 IPC is, as a result of this is quashed and set aside.

¶53

Now, coming to the second limb of arguments, the case of the pe��oner about his being arraigned as accused for viola�on of provisions of SCSTPOA is concerned, perusal of the FIR itself explicitly points out that words allegedly poin�ng out towards caste were not aributed to the pe��oner and his only role was that a@er the accident co-passengers had also come down and out of those, one female, Bhawna Gupta, allegedly use such words. In the en�re reading of the FIR, it is not pointed out that the pe��oner told the other accused to use such words. Merely because the pe��oner was present with two other persons, out of whom one lady had allegedly used such words, the pe��oner cannot be stated to have had any intent to use such language. Even if the en�re set of allega�ons in the FIR regarding the usage of words SCSTPOA are taken as gospel truth, and this cannot be aributed to the pe��oner, and prosecu�ng him in a special Court for the commission of such an offense would be total is-carriage of jus�ce, which is something for which this Court has inherent jurisdic�on to prevent.

¶54

In Asmathunnisa vs. State of A.P. and another, 2011 AIR (Supreme Court) 1905, Division Bench of Supreme Court, holds as under:-

¶55

[5]. The significant part of this complaint is that the offending words were admiedly spoken by Mohd. Samiuddin, the husband of the appellant. He abused Sridevi’s husband in filthy language by naming caste and said that “AA LAMBADODU”, “let him come home today we will sele the maer with him.” At that �me, admiedly Sridevi’s husband was not present. [8A] According to the complaint, no offence under the aforesaid sec�on can be made out against the appellant because the ingriedients of the offence are not made out. In the complaint so called offending words were not even a*ributed to the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant merely accompanied her husband and the offending words were spoken by the husband appellant in this appeal by no stretch of imagina�on can be held guilty of the offence under Sec�on 3(1)(x) of the 1989 Act.

¶56

ANJU RANI 2023.11.22 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-47745-2023

��

[10]. The aforesaid paragraphs clearly mean that the words used are “in any place but within public view”, which means that the public must view the person being insulted for which he must be present and no offence on the allega�ons under the said sec�on gets a*racted if the person is not present.

¶61

Consequently, the present FIR qua Sec�ons 427 IPC and Sec�on 3(x) & 4 and Sec�on 3(s) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Preven�on of Atroci�es), Act, 1989, is as a result of this quashed and set aside. Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial qua Sec�on 279/337 IPC or any other addi�onal offence added while framing charges except the offences for which FIR quashed.

¶62

Pe--on allowed . All pending applica�ons stand closed in tune with this judgment.

¶63

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE November 20, 2023 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes

¶64

ANJU RANI 2023.11.22 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Parmender Singh Rawat v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmender Singh Rawat v. State of Punjab and Another

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

Sudhir Vasdev Vs State of Haryana and Another

Balkar Singh @ Bali Vs State of Punjab

Deepak @ Deepu Vs State of Haryana

Jitendra Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jaspinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sarabjit Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others