IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH CRIMINAL REVISION No. (2% 4’ OF 2006 gmgh gwaw APPLICANTS : ' 1. Suresh Kumar, S/o Umangchand Baghmar, Aged about 43 years, Village— Main Road Keshkal. am Pravesh Pandey, S/o Late ‘Shri Ramadhar Pandey, Aged about 62 years, Villa— ge Mungbadi Keshkal. Surendra Kumar Sharma, S/o ' 1 Purushottamlal Sharma, Aged about 42 years, Village— Govindpur Kanker (C.G.) State of Chhatisarh, Through: Police Station Keshkai d Jagdaipur Nort Bastar (C.G.). I Ll R I: tg h XI-HC—zz ‘ 3a W, m, W " f 5hri Bhuskor Payashi, Iearned co‘unsel for fhe applicams, submifs fha? he‘do’es‘not press on M.Cr.P.No.662/200’6ffor shy. $ M.Cr.P.Na.662/2006 for- stay is dismissed as not pressed. He furfher submiis ihoi this moi-fer be heard finally and disposed of a? the admission sfoge. Prayer is nof opposed. The revision is heard fi 1olly. This revision is direcfeid agains‘r an order da‘i'ed 13.03.2006 passed by Speciai Judge, §eheduied Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Jogdalpur in Sessions Case No. 370/2005 whereby charges under Section 506-3 I.P.C. and under Section 3 (1) (x) of th Scheduled Caste dz Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) A t, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act') were framed agains the applicants herein. Shri Bhaskar Payashi, l arned counsel for the applicants at the very outset submitted t at he does not assail the impugned «v.:order so far as it relates to aming of charge under section 506- , B of the I.P.C. against the pplicants and would only assail the ya“. ~ m ................ .............. 3TI§3T a?! Wm z waimw m awaitw . 5mmW §W {WK a:wm 31.03.2006 Applicants by Shri Bhasikar Payashi, Advocafe. Shri U.K.S.Chandel, Panel Lawyer for fhe Stafe. I.A.No.806/2006 for ‘taking documenf on record is considered and allowed. Documen‘r is faken on record. XI—HC—22 mmffmhia‘wt 3§WW Budhiarmaari. On 13.10.2003 The ’ 5,:9Sérpnnch of viHage Budhiar- aari called Sonibai and asked her- 'ro accompany him To The hous of The Then Chief MinisTer and To submiT her grievances befor The Then Chief MinisTer. IT appears framing of charge under Se:*ion 3 (1) (x) of the Ad agdiny ‘H'Ie applicanfs herein. Brief fads are fha‘r 'Hhe complainan‘r-Sonibai, wife of Jugr'u Ram, residenf of village Pu on, Disfr'icf Kanker- and a member- of 1he Scheduled Tribe was w rking on daily wages in rhe office of ‘Sure§h Baghmar, ihe applica f No.1. Despite working for abou‘I‘ Two years in his office, 1’he appii an? No.1 or his Mano§ér RamPmvesh %ndey, ‘ihe applicant No.2 d d no? pay The en‘tire wages due To her. She repeaTeaiy kepT pressi g for paymenf of wages. SomeTimes before June -4July 2003 5 nibai wenT To The house of applicanT- Suresh Baghmor aT Keshkai wiTh her husbogd’. IT is alleged ThoT The applicanTs No.1 To 3 w re presenT @ The house. IT is furTher alleged in The com lainT lodged by Sonibai ThaT upon a demand raised by her for aymenT of back wages, all The Three applicanTs goT annoyed and h rled filThy abuses on her while Taking The name of her casTe. The furTher ThreaTened To geT her killed in a bomb explosion. B ng exTremeIy frighTened, Soni Bai reTurned home and kepT in c nfinemenT for 10 - 15 days. AfTer consulTing The v Ilagers ThereafTer, she was advised To go To The Sarpanch of vil s c e l XI—HC-22 srw am WW mmmw } WW%W(WTI WWEW y1/ §xWm accompanied fhe surpanch and gave an application +0 1’he *hen hief Minisfer on 13.10.2003. Upon invesfigafion of The. sa Cash/Scheduled Tribe Cel under- Secfion 3 (1) (x) of 1' e Acf and 506 B of the IPC Vida *‘ order dared 13 3 2006 char-g ,under' 3 (1) (x) of The Acf and 506 B of fhe I P C were framed a9 Inst ‘Hae applicanfs / - x 5hr! Bhaskar Payaslru, *ha? upon such advice, Sonib complaint by “the 5cheduled Kanker, prosecufion was hunched ;a learned counsel for ‘Hne applicanfs argued tha'r in order- 1‘0 consf lute 'lhe offence under Secfion 3 (1) (x) of The Acf, if was absolu ely essential for fhe prosecufion 1'0 show prima facie a? fhe sf of charge fhaf fhe applican‘rs, not being members of the 5c eduled Caste or- Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insulted or inti idated Sonibai, a member of the Scheduled Tribe, with inte t to humiliate a member of the Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. The charge framed by the learned Special Judge specifically alleged that the applicant had, in public view, insulted or intimidated Sonibai intention ly with intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Sc eduled Tribe. learned counsel for the applicants Shri Bhaskar Payashi, " riifurther submits that the complaint to the Chief Minister ' . submitted by Sonibai after a ery long delay shows that the alleged offence was committed inside the house of applicant No.1 and does ' i i‘, a XI—HC—22 mm%k@rtfagn %3IF%wan%¥1 n01- shaw fha‘l‘ the offence, if (my, alieged 1'0 have been commifted by 1'he applicanfs under Secfion 3 (1) (x) of the Acf was commiffed in public view. He furfher‘ con ends fhaf so far as fhe sfafemenf of Nafhela recorded under 5e ion 161 Cr.P.C. is concerned, sonibai is The sis‘ier—in—law and even 'i he along wifh his wife was present ‘h’f‘fhe Time of alleged abuses fhreafs given by fhe applicanfs ‘ro Sombal by lakmg lhe name of her casfe Inside The house of 1‘he npRlicanf No.1‘ if would noi m famounf fo intimidafing or insulfingl wifhin public View. .K.5.Chandel, learned Panel Lawyer has argued Thai aT The sTage o .framing charge, no roving enquiry is conTemplaTed and The maTer I produced by The prosecuTion has To be Taken aT iTs face value and is noT To be appreciaTed and weighed for coming To The cone usion wheTher a charge againsT The applicanTs should be framed or oT. In ThaT View of The maTTer, he urged ThaT. The presence of N hela Ram and his wife aT The Time of The alleged ThreaTs, filThy a uses and inTimidaTion while naming The casTe of Sonibai by The pplicanTs consTiTuTes The offence under SecTion 3 (1)(x) of The since The requiremenT of law To aTTr-acT SecTion 3(1)(x) is “publi view" and noT “public place”. I‘aHaVing heard The rival conTenTions, I have perused The record. IT is no doubT True ThaT in The applicaTion presenTed To The Chief MinisTer by 5onibai, iT 0n the o‘rher hand, Shri noT menTioned ThaT NaThela Ram T w XI—HC—22