Delhi High CourtState vs Om Prakash Rana & Ors on 17 December, 2013Author:Veena BirbalBench:Veena BirbalIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on : 17.12.2013

+     CRL.REV.P. 622/2013

      STATE                                            ..... Petitioner
                          Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, APP for State.

                          versus

      OM PRAKASH RANA & ORS                              ..... Respondents
                   Through: None.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

                          JUDGMENTVEENA BIRBAL, J. (ORAL)


CRL.M.A. 16707/2013 (EXEMPTION)

       Allowed, subject to just exceptions.CRL.M.A. 16706/2013 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

      In view of the reasoning given, delay in filing the petition is
condoned.The application stands disposed of.CRL.REV.P. 622/20131.    This criminal revision petition has been filed wherein challenge has
been made to judgment dated 12.07.2013 passed by learned ASJ in sessions
case No.21/2013 whereby learned ASJ has held that no offence under
Section 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (PreventionCrl.Rev. P.622/2013                                           Page 1 of 6of Atrocities) Act, (in short referred to as the SC/ST Act) is made out
against the respondents and as such has discharged the respondents.2.    The facts relevant for the disposal of present revision petition are that
on 18.07.2012, Smt. Neelam wife of Narender Kumar who is the
complainant in the present case, made a complaint against the
respondents/accused persons alleging therein that she is running a beauty
parlour at shop no.C-54, Avantika, Rohini, Sector-1, for the past many
years. Sh. O.P. Rana i.e. respondent No.1 is her landlord and respondent
No.2 is his wife. On 11.7.2012 at about 6.00 PM the owner of the shop i.e.
respondent no.1 O.P. Rana had locked the shutter of the shop when one
customer and a female employee of the complainant were inside the shop.
At that time the complainant was not there as she was unwell and was
advised rest by the doctor.     However, she went to police station and
registered a complaint on the said date. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 Om
Parkash Rana had opened the lock of the shutter and the customer and
employee of complainant could come out from the shop and got the relief. It
is alleged that on 12.07.2012 late night the respondents/accused persons
opened the lock of the shop and in the presence of police officials, the
complainant had put her lock on the shutter. Further allegations are that on
15.7.2012 at about 10 AM when the complainant went to her shop, the
respondent No.1 O.P. Rana was present he did not allow the complainant to
open the lock and misbehaved with her. His wife i.e. respondent no.2 was
also present there. When she proceeded for lodging a report against them in
the police station, both the respondents followed her and started abusing her.
When she had reached near police station Vijay Vihar, both the respondents
had abused her by saying "churi chamari, gatar ki paidaish". She made aCrl.Rev. P.622/2013                                             Page 2 of 6call     to   police   station   by   dialling   100   number.      Thereupon,
respondents/accused persons said "Tu chamar hai aur chamar hi rahegi,
hamari tarah jaat nahi ban jayegi". As per the complainant she somehow
saved herself and went to the police station. Even outside the police station
they called her "churi chamari".           On the basis of her report, FIR
No.319/2012 under Section 3 of SC/ST Act was registered and the same was
given for further action to the concerned official. During the investigation,
statements of PWs were recorded. After completion of investigation, a
report underSection 173Cr.P.C. was filed against the respondents before
the learned ASJ.3.       After supply of necessary materials to the respondents, arguments on
charge were heard by the learned ASJ.4.       Learned ASJ vide impugned order has held that the complainant has
not mentioned in the complaint in whose presence the offending words were
used by the respondents. It is further held that there is no mention of
presence of eye witnesses in the complaint dated 18.7.2012 at the time of
alleged occurrence. Further, there was delay of three days in lodging the
FIR for which there is no explanation. Relying on the judgment ofDaya
Bhatnagar and Others v. State: 2004 (2) JCC 1136 and Deepa Bajwa v. State
& Ors.: 115 (2004) DLT 202, it has been held that no offence underSection
3of SC/ST Act is made out against the respondents/accused persons, as
such, the accused persons/respondents have been discharged.5.       Aggrieved with the same, present revision petition is filed by the
State.6.       Learned APP appearing for State has contended that there is prima
facie enough material on record to frame the charge against theCrl.Rev. P.622/2013                                              Page 3 of 6respondents/accused persons.      It is submitted that complainant in her
supplementary statement dated 27.08.2012 stated the presence of public
witnesses Durga Dutt and Meenakshi in whose presence it is alleged that
caste remarks were made. In these circumstances, the trial court ought to
have framed the charge against the accused persons underSection 3of
SC/ST Act.7.    I have considered the submissions made.8.    The alleged occurrence is dated 15.7.2012. The complainant Neelam
for the first time reported the matter to the police on 18.7.2012. In her entire
statement to the police, on the basis of which FIR No.319/2012 is registered,
there is no mention of presence of Meenakshi and Durga Dutt when the
alleged offending words were alleged to have been uttered by the
respondents/accused persons to the complainant.9.InDeepa Bajwa vs. State(supra), where quashing of FIR underSection 3of SC/ST Act, 1989 was sought, it was held by this court that for
ascertaining that a complaint on the basis of which the complainant seeks
registration of FIR, must disclose essential ingredients of the offence and in
case a complaint lacks or is wanting in any of the essential ingredients, the
lacuna or deficiency cannot be filled up by obtaining additional complaint or
supplementary statement and thereafter proceed to register the FIR.            The
relevant portion of the judgment is as under:-"After considering the submissions made by the learned
      counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that
      a complaint, on the basis of which the complainant seeks
      registration of an FIR, must disclose essential ingredients of the
      offence and in case a complaint lacks or is wanting in any of the
      essential ingredients, the lacuna or deficiency cannot be filled
      up by obtaining additional complaint or supplementary
      statement and thereafter proceed to register the FIR. If such aCrl.Rev. P.622/2013                                              Page 4 of 6course is permitted, it would give undue latitude as well as
      opportunity to unscrupulous complainants to nail others by
      hook or by crook in spite of the fact that their initial complaint
      does not make out the offence complained of. Such a course
      would be utter abuse of the process of law. First version as
      disclosed in a complaint is always important for adjudicating as
      to whether an accused has committed or not an offence. In the
      complaint dated 19th April, 2001, the Complainant himself
      alleged that the Councillor Chhannu Mal was introducing him
      to the petitioner. If that was the case, how could he say later
      that on that day the petitioner knew that he was a Scheduled
      Caste. This statement, therefore, was a crude falsity introduced
      at the behest of the police to implicate the petitioner under
      Section 3 of the Act. This effort on the part of the police to
      supply the deficiency and cover up a lacuna in the complaint in
      view of legal opinion was totally unwarranted and an abuse of
      the process of law."10.   In the present case, the original complaint lodged by the complainant
does not mention in whose presence the offending words were used by the
respondents/accused persons. There is also nothing on record to show that
the respondents/accused persons were having the knowledge that the
complainant was a member of SC/ST community. There is nothing on
record to show that the offending words were used in full public view. The
names of alleged witnesses are not mentioned in the complaint dated
18.7.2012.    The witnesses i.e. Meenakshi and Durga Dutt have alleged
themselves to be the eye witnesses. But their names have not been stated by
the complainant in her complaint.      The supplementary statement dated
27.8.2012 of the complainant giving the names of alleged witnesses can't fill
up the lacuna. There is also delay of 3 days in lodging the FIR. The delay is
also not explained. The basic ingredients ofSection 3(x)of the SC/ST Act
are missing in the present case. There is no illegality in the impugned orderCrl.Rev. P.622/2013                                            Page 5 of 6which calls for interference of this court.The revision petition is dismissed.VEENA BIRBAL, J
DECEMBER 17, 2013
srbCrl.Rev. P.622/2013                                       Page 6 of 6