Jagdish Prashad Mittal vs State of Uttaranchal and another

Hon''ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—Both these petitions are being adjudicated by this single verdict, for the reason that these challenge the same impugned order of cognizance dated 16.3.2006 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.598 of 2006 titled as State Vs. Rajnish Mittal and Jagdish Prasad (both son and father). The learned Magistrate passed the said order of cognizance for the offences of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as SC/ST Act) and Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as IPC) pertaining to crime no.461-A/2005, P.S. Kotwali Dehradun.

The factual controversy between these father and son on the one hand and Vinod Kumar (the complainant) on the other relates back to a promise of transaction regarding the supply of furniture wood by the latter to Mittals. It is pertinent to mention that Vinod Kumar is a government employee and working as a Unit In-charge at some Tehsil Headquarter of District Dehradun in Decentralized Water Shed Management Department, which has been founded by the State for preservation and restoration of the natural water. Sri Mittals? family home was underway of construction, so they were in need of some furniture wood. At the relevant time, they came across to each other and Vinod Kumar promised to supply the furniture wood on a cheaper rate. Sri Rajnish Mittal, who runs a P.C.O. Telephone Booth in Dehradun city, made the advancement of some wherewithal to the tune of Rs.20,000 + Rs.10,000/-, way back in April, 2003. The complainant Vinod Kumar did not honour his promise, so this all became the bone of contention between the two, giving rise the differences in sundry ways between them. These differences escalated in the form of enmity and revenge. It is alleged that on 14.2.2004, Vinod Kumar called the P.C.O. Runner Mr. Rajnish Mittal at his home on the pretending promise to return his money, where Mr. Mittal was forcibly confined in a room and he was threatened to be killed along with the hurling of abuses. In addition, Smt. Savita, W/o Vinod Kumar forced Rajnish Mittal to write a letter to his detriment, threatening him to implicate in a rape case. Sri Rajnish Mittal was too scared to disclose this incident anywhere outside. Thereafter, on dated 7.9.2005 at about 11:20 AM, Vinod Kumar came at the P.C.O. Shop of Rajnish Mittal and abused him, using all adjectives, with the allegations of sending caste indicative S.M.S. on his mobile phone. When Rajnish Mittal asked him to restrain and to return the money advanced to him, as stated above, the accused Vinod Kumar lost all his mental balance and challenged Rajnish Mittal to do whatever he likes. Mr. Rajnish Mittal thereafter moved an application on 9.11.2005 u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereupon the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order of registration and investigation of the case on 26.11.2005. In pursuance of this order of learned Magistrate, the FIR was lodged by the Police Station, Kotwali City on 1.12.2005, bearing crime no.461/2005. After the investigation, chargesheet No.36/2006 was submitted for the offence of Sections 406, 342, 504 and 506 IPC against Vinod Kumar, which is pending trial in the court of Magistrate.

On the other hand, Vinod Kumar, when came to know from Dhara Outpost of P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Dehradun that Rajnish Mittal has lodged a report against him, then he also lodged the report against Mr. Rajnish Mittal and Mr. J.P. Mittal on dated 1.12.2005 at 16:45 PM, bearing crime no.461A/2005. He narrated in the contents of his report that Rajnish Mittal used to make obscene phone calls at his residential telephone no.2642130. In order to ascertain the number of incoming call, he got installed the Caller I.D. in the above phone, whereupon Rajnish Mittal could be traced. When his activities were complained of to Mr. J.P. Mittal (father of Rajnish Mittal), then he apologized with a note in writing that henceforth such occurrence would not be repeated. Having received such a note of apology on the part of ?Mittals?, Vinod Kumar dropped the idea to initiate any legal action against the accused. However, Rajnish Mittal again started sending the S.M.Ss. on the mobile number of Vinod Kumar, with all derogatory remark, using caste indicative words. The matter was again complained of to Mr. J.P. Mittal at the P.C.O. Booth, but this time both Mittals? attitude was quite otherwise and they said that nothing wrong has been done if a ?Dome? has been called a ?Dome?. Nay, Rajnish Mittal said that the mental equilibrium of ?you Chamars? has been in disorder and the Government has done so and that they would set their mindset in order.

So, with all the above facts and allegations, the FIR was also lodged by Vinod Kumar, as stated above. Vinod Kumar in his statement (copy whereof has been annexed as annexure 4 to the petition) has stated that he moved an application on 7.11.2005 for lodging the FIR, while the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners has strenuously argued that as per the own admission of Vinod Kumar, he lodged the FIR after noticing the lodging of the same against himself by Mr. Rajnish Mittal. Be that as it may, the fact is not so relevant to be decisive while adjudicating this petition. These first information reports, against each other, could be lodged on the same day with a difference of few hours.

It was further argued on behalf of petitioners that the contents of the FIR, regarding the installation of Caller I.D., are false, since the information supplied to Mr. Rajnish Mittal on 1.2.2010 sought under the Right to Information Act, adverts that the telephone number ?2642130?, issued in the name of Savita Singh W/o Vinod Kumar at her residence 10 Devlok Colony, Shimla Road, Majra, was in operation since 10.6.2002 to 19.12.2004 and the said connection did not have any Caller I.D. Facility. Again, the said information supplied by the Telephone Department cannot be a basis to be decisive for this petition, in as much as, this is merely a question of fact and all these facts cannot be scrupulously analyzed while disposing of this petition. Fortiori, the chargesheet has been submitted against Mr. Mittals, not only for the offence of Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act but also for the offence of Section 504 IPC and it is now a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the principle of ?falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus? is no more prevalent to adjudicate a criminal trial.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a precedent of the Hon?ble Apex Court in the case of ?Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others? reported in (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 446. In the said precedent, the Hon?ble Apex Court was of the view that for making out the offence of Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, it is mandatory that the caste indicative derogatory remark should be made by a upper caste person in public view and that the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant/accused was not a member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. This precedent is not attracted in the present controversy for the reason the accused persons were ?Mittals? which is a well recognized an upper caste community, so there was no necessity to write a single sentence in the contents of the FIR that Mr. Rajnish Mittal and Mr. J.P. Mittal are the members of the upper caste community, inasmuch as, their community apparently manifested by their name and sub-name.

It is also relevant to mention that the P.C.O. Shop was at a public place, so using the words by Mittals?, indicating the word ?Chamar? with all other derogatory remarks are prima faciely covered within the ambit of Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act inasmuch as, the same were made within the full public view. Besides, the chargesheet against Vinod Kumar is pending trial in the court below, so it will be in all fitness of things that these Mittals kins should also be tried by the court of competent jurisdiction in view of the fact that the theme of both the first information reports arises out of the common controversy.

In view of what has been stated above, this Court is not inclined to quash the chargesheet and the cognizance order against the petitioners. Both the petitions are devoid of merit and deserve dismissal. The petitions are dismissed accordingly. Information be sent to the court below to proceed ahead with the trial. (Stay vacation applications in both the petitions are also disposed of accordingly)