KP Thakur and Another vs. State of UP and anr.

KP Thakur and Another vs. State of UP and anr.


High Court of Judicature of Allahabad
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40418 of 2012
K.P. Thakur And Anr.
State of U.P. and Anr.

Hon'ble Justice Ram Krishna Gautam


K.P. Thakur, an applicant made an application to the Allahabad high court under section 482 of CrPC to quash the entire proceedings under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (X) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Duddhi, Sonebhadra. State of U.P. was an opposite party to the present application.

Brief facts:

A departmental inquiry was pending against Vinod Kumar Tanay, wherein applicant no. 1 K.P. Thakur was Enquiry Officer and applicant no. 2 Binod Kumar was Presenting Officer, which was being hindered by Vinod Kumar Tanay, who was summoned for recording of evidence, where he came with M.P. Tiwari, another co-worker. The complaint was lodged by applicants to Department’s superiors and local authorities against Vinod Kumar Tanay for making hindrance to proceedings. This complaint, with false accusation, was got lodged before court of Judicial Magistrate, Duddhi, Sonebhadra, wherein allegation was made with a view to make hindrance in enquiry, wherein he was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his two witnesses (co-workers), were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and learned Magistrate passed impugned summoning order for offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act.

Arguments Advanced

Arguments of the Applicant:

  • It was the contention of the applicant that, no assault or abuse in a public view was made by applicants. The statements, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as of complainant were without any mentioning of the occurrence of alleged assault and abuse was made with intention to abuse or insult on the basis of complainant being member of Scheduled Caste community by present applicants, who were not the members of Scheduled Caste community. The place of occurrence has been chamber of applicant no. 1, it was not an abuse in the public view.
  • The essential ingredients of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. In Gorige Pentaiah Versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Others[1], Apex Court has propounded that a public view is the view, which is of public access. Once it is inside any house, it will not be a public view and in the case of lack of above basic ingredient, the offences of Section 3(1)(X) of the Act is not completed.
  • It was submitted that the allegations leveled by complainant was false and for hindering senior officers and influencing enquiry being conducted against him. Hence, this application was made with above prayer for setting aside impugned summoning order.

Arguments for respondent:

  • It was contention of the respondent that, there was corruption in the office of applicants, for which repeated complaint was being made and no inquiry was got conducted.
  • It was argued by the opposite counsel that when this occurrence took place, door was bolted from inside and M.P. Tiwari was asked to remain outside from chamber, wherein he was assaulted and insulted by taking name of his caste and threat of dire consequences was extended, which was instantly complained to Department’s officers as well as local authorities and police, but of no avail.
  • Then a complaint was filed before Judicial Magistrate, where cognizance was taken and enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. was got conducted, thereafter, prima facie evidence was found and impugned summoning order was passed against applicants.
  • In regard with, place of occurrence was an office, which can never be held as residential premises of accused persons. It was a public place. It can never be said to be not in public view. Accordingly, this application to be dismissed.

Decision of the Court:

The court held that, it was a Chamber of the Enquiry Officer, where Presenting Officer and Enquiry Officer were present and it can never be said to be a public view. Even if, any occurrence took place at that place, it may never be said to be a public view and it has been verified by the Apex Court[2].

Further, the high court referred to Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke vs State Of Maharashtra[3], wherein Supreme Court has propounded that while dealing with a matter, in which complaint or accusation has been lodged by administrative junior or employee against his Head of Office or administrative superior regarding their exploitation or harassment, the Court must take in mind that if such type of occurrence are being actually visualized, then it will be highly impossible for administrative superiors to take work from administrative juniors. There must be administrative authority of administrative superiors, only then, they will be in position to take work from junior employees and mere bald allegation of harassment and such type of exploitation are to be strictly analyzed with all care and caution.

The High Court pronounced that apparently offence under Section 3(1) (X) of the Act was not made out, on the basis of evidence collected in inquiry by Magistrate concerned and allowed the application, by refusing the relief prayed.

Edited by Pragash Boopal

Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje


[1] (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 531

[2]Gorige Pentaiah Versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

[3]AIR 2018 SC 2659