SCC Online Web Edition, © 2021 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Monday, December 20, 2021
Printed For: RONAK PATTANAIK, KIIT School of Law
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2021 Delhi Reported Judgments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 SCC OnLine Del 961 : (2004) 77 DRJ 725 : (2004) 115 DLT 202
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
WP (Crl) No. 825/2001
Deepa Bajwa … Petitioner
Versus
State & Ors. … Respondents
R.C. CHOPRA, J.
Decided on : November 1, 2004
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Section 3—Complaint against the petitioner—FIR initially not registered as the
complainant did not state that the petitioner knew his caste when the remark in question
was made—The first version in the complaint is always important—Subsequent filling of
lacunae is not permissible—The FIR in question quashed.
[Para 6]
Case referred
Daya Bhatnagar v. State 109 (2004) DLT 915
Mr. D.C. Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D.K. Mathur, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4.
Mr. S.C. Singhal, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5.
R.C. CHOPRA, J.:— This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with a prayer to quash F.I.R. No. 24672001 registered
at Police Station Delhi Cantt under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ only).
2. The petitioner prays for quashing the aforesaid F.I.R. mainly on the ground that
in the complaint lodged by the complainant on 19th April, 2001, it was nowhere
mentioned that the petitioner/accused knew that the complainant belonged to the
community of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. When no F.I.R. could be
registered in view of this deficiency, opinion was taken from the prosecution Branch
and thereafter a supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded to the
effect that the petitioner knew that the Complainant belonged to the said Caste.
Thereafter, on 14th June, 2001, the F.I.R. in question on the basis of complaint dated
19th April, 2001, was registered. The petitioner pleads that since the complaint as
lodged by the Complainant did not make out any case under Section 3 of the Act the
police misused its powers by recording supplementary statement of the complainant
so as to fill up the lacuna in the complaint and thereafter register an F.I.R.
Page: 726
3. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, arethat the
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2021 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Monday, December 20, 2021
Printed For: RONAK PATTANAIK, KIIT School of Law
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2021 Delhi Reported Judgments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
respondent No. 5/Complainant had allegedly visited the of/ice of the petitioner, who
was Cantonment Executive Officer, on 19th April. 2001, along with the Councillor of
the area, Shri Chhannu Mal and some others. According to the complaint when Shri
Chhannu Mal was introducing the complainant and others to the petitioner, the
petitioner called the Complainant ‘Choora, Chamar and Goonda’ and asked him to get
out of her office. He then lodged a complaint at Police Station Delhi Cantt under
Section 3 of the Act.
4. The status report filed by the respondents shows that the complaint was kept
pending as the ingredients of the offence under Section 3 of the Act were not
complete. Legal opinion from the prosecution Branch was obtained by the S.H.O. and
thereafter the complainant was asked as to whether the petitioner had prior knowledge
or not about his caste. After recording a supplementary statement of the complainant,
in which he stated that the petitioner had knowledge about his caste, the F.I.R. in
question was registered on 14th June, 2001. The affidavit filed by the respondent No.
3 also confirms that the complaint dated 19th April, 2001, made by the Complainant
did not disclose the ingredients of Section 3 of the Act and as such clarifications were
sought and after receipt of clarifications, the F.I.R. was registered.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the police had no
business to fill up the lacunae or gaps in the complaint and then register an F.I.R.
against the petitioner after about two months on the basis of the complaint which did
not disclose the ingredients of the offence under Section 3 of the Act. It is submitted
that the F.I.R. in question is an abuse of the process of law and as such liable to be
quashed. Ho relies upon a judgment of this Court in Daya Bhatnagar & Ors. v. State,
109 (2004) Delhi Law Times 915, in which it was categorically held that the accused
must have knowledge or awareness that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe community and if an accused does not know that the person whom he
is insulting, intimidating or humiliating is a member of a Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe, no offence under this Section would be constituted. Learned counsel
for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 5 have contended that the
registration of the F.I.R. after recording supplementary statement of the Complainant
was fully justified and as such there are no good grounds for quashing the F.I.R. as
prayed.
6. After considering the submissions made by 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 F.I.R., 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 F.I.R. If such a course
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.
Page: 727
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
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2021 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Monday, December 20, 2021
Printed For: RONAK PATTANAIK, KIIT School of Law
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2021 Delhi Reported Judgments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
7. In the result, it is held that it is a fit case for exercise of powers under Article
226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the F.I.R. No.
246/2001 registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt. and the proceedings initiated in
consequence thereof. It is ordered accordingly.
The petition stands disposed of.
Crl. M. No. 447/2002
Disposed of.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.
