The Court should be extremely circumspect in its approach and cognizant of the legislative intent of the Act, the Judge noted.
———
ONLY the proper implementation the provisions of the Scheduled Caste [SC] and Scheduled Tribe [ST] (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [POAA] will help realize the goal of a caste discrimination free society, observed the Delhi High Court on Tuesday in Puran Chand Gupta vs. The State NCT of Delhi.
“It is important to reiterate that unless the provisions of the Act are enforced in their true letter and spirit, and the legislative intent underlying the Act is manifested, the vision of a society free of caste-based discrimination will only remain a distant dream.”
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, who pronounced the judgment, added that courts should be extremely circumspect in quashing criminal proceedings under special statutes like the POAA.
The observations of the court came in a plea filed by three persons seeking to quash a first information report [FIR], invoking POAA provisions, on the ground that they had “compromised” with the complainant.
Factual background
The complainant named Vipin Singh (Respondent No. 2) was involved in the work of painting and tiling in homes. Pursuant to receiving an order for tiling, he asked Anil Kumar (Petitioner No. 3) to engage his employee Jagan in the work of tiling for a total amount of Rs. 23,000.
The owner of the house expressed his dissatisfaction citing that the work was not properly done. Out of the total amount of Rs. 23,000, the complainant gave Rs. 15,000 to Jagan and assured him that he will receive the balance amount of Rs. 8,000 within the next two days. This enraged Jagan, who started arguing with the complainant.
After complaining to Kumar, Jagan, along with Manish Sharma (Petitioner No. 2) and four other persons, abused and threatened the complainant regarding the due amount.
A few days later, the complainant received a call from Jagan’s friends (the petitioners), who passed derogatory casteist remarks against him.
The complainant first approached the local police about the incident, who refused to file an FIR. It was registered only after he filed a written complaint with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Dwarka.
The petitioners then moved the High Court seeking to quash the FIR registered, stating that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and the complainant, Singh.
Arguments advanced
On behalf of the petitioners, it was submitted that the petitioners and complainant were known to each other, and were neighbors; due to some misunderstanding, the quarrel took place between them, but there was no intention to hurt the complainant.
It was therefore submitted that the complainant had amicably settled all his grievances with the petitioners vide a compromise-cum-settlement deed out of his free will and without any coercion.
On behalf of the complainant, it was submitted that the matter had been amicably settled and that, he had no objection to the petitioners’ prayer, that is, quashing the FIR.
The State, however, objected to the plea, stating that rather than resolving the matter as a business issue, the accused persons tried to bully and insult the complainant on the basis of his caste.
The present FIR is a classic case of mischief sought to be criminalized by POAA, the government counsel affirmed.
It was contended that criminal offences of such grave nature cannot be compounded based on settlement between the parties. If quashing is allowed on the basis of compromise, it would send a wrong message in the society, it was pointed out.
What the Court said
On a bare perusal of sub-section (9) of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code [CrPC], the court found it evident that offences which are non-compoundable cannot be compounded by a criminal court. Any such attempt by the Court would amount to alteration, addition, and modification of section 320, which is the exclusive domain of the legislature. However, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of case and for justifiable reasons, can quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of any court and/or to secure the ends of justice, it held.
Although the petitioners in the case invoked section 482, the high court observed that the position of law is that quashing of FIR should be an exception, and the jurisdiction for the same should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in rarest of the rare cases.
The High Court made it clear that while examining an FIR for quashing under section 482, the court: (a) cannot enter into the merits of the case, or (b) cannot embark upon a roving enquiry, and (c) cannot conduct a trial as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR, or cannot see the probability of conviction on the basis of evidence on record.
Before appreciating the specific facts of the case, the judge went through the legislative intent of the POAA.
The founding fathers of the nation were conscious of the harsh realities of the society and the discrimination that members of the SC and ST communities have been subjected to, the court said. So, the POAA was enacted to protect them.
“At the time of independence, the lofty ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity were just utopian principles that were although guaranteed by law, but not present on ground. It was for the welfare of the downtrodden and vulnerable that the ameliorative and remedial measures were brought in to ensure that their civil rights are protected and equality in principle is adopted in practice.”
The Judge went on:
“One of the objectives of the Preamble of Constitution is “fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation”. The Preamble did not originally contain the expression “fraternity”, rather it was subsequently inserted by the Drafting Committee. It is relevant to refer to the explanation given by Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar for the word “fraternity” wherein he stated that “fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians”. In a country like ours with the vivid diversity and the plethora of fault lines, it is necessary to emphasise and re-emphasize that the unity and integrity of India can be preserved only by a spirit of brotherhood.”
The judge emphasised that the POAA for the first time laid down an expansive definition of “atrocity” to cover the multiple manners through which the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have been humiliated, oppressed and downtrodden for centuries. Therefore, he reiterated that unless the provisions of the Act are enforced in their true letter and spirit, and the legislative intent underlying the Act is manifested, the vision of a society free of caste-based discrimination will only remain a distant dream.
Coming to the instant case, the Court held that the remarks made against the victim in the present case were totally unprovoked, uncalled for and done with the sole intention of humiliating him for a petty sum of money.
The offence was preceded by a criminal intent of humiliation based on caste, the court noted. So, the possibility that the complainant was coerced to “compromise” the matter cannot be ruled out.
This being the case, the Court held that in cases involving offences under special legislations like the POAA, courts must be diligent while considering the quashing of criminal proceedings. While dealing with the quashing of the criminal proceedings under the POAA, the Court should be extremely circumspect in its approach and cognizant of the legislative intent of the Act, the judge noted.
He underlined that vulnerability of weaker sections of society to be prone to coercion must be considered, and that courts should be more vigilant to ensure that the victim has entered the compromise on their own volition and free will, and not on account of any duress.
“If, while considering the same, there is an iota of apprehension of compulsion or coercion, no relief can be given to the accused. The factors to determine the volition/free consent of the victim would depend on the facts and circumstances and would vary from case to case.”
The court stated that in a country like India, with the vivid diversity and the plethora of fault lines, it is necessary to emphasize and re-emphasize that the unity and integrity of India can be preserved only by a spirit of brotherhood.
With these observations, the court dismissed the plea.
Click here to read the Delhi High Court’s judgment.
