Caste Hurl Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes FIR Against Times Now Reporter Bhawana Gupta, Says She Didn't Know Complainant's Caste

Observing that she "had no personal knowledge of the victim's or her family's caste", the Punjab & Haryana High Court today quashed the FIR lodged for rash driving and passing casteist remarks, against Times Now Navbharat Senior Journalist Bhavna Gupta (Kishore). In May 2023, Times Now Navbharat reporter Bhawna Gupta along with the cameraman Mritunjay Kumar and driver Parmender were arrested under Sections 279, 337, 427 IPC and Section 3(x) and 4 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989. However, all the accused were granted Bail.Justice Anoop Chitkara observed, "It remains undisputed that the accused/petitioner had no personal knowledge of the victim's or her family's caste. As such, the Court cannot presume that the accused was aware of the victim's caste or tribal identity. Given this, the primary burden was on the complainant to establish this knowledge, which they did not state. Neither the State nor the complainant mentioned that the petitioner was aware of the victim's caste, and their conspicuous silence speaks more than the words."The Court was seized of a plea seeking quashing of FIR under Section 482, for quashing for FIR under Sections 279, 337, 427 IPC and Section 3(x) and 4 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989, Sections 3(x) and 4 deleted and Section 3(s) of the SC/ST Act added later on.According to Prosecution, the case was based on the statement made by one Gagan who stated to belong from SC/ST community. It was alleged that a car driven by one Parminder Singh Rawat in which Bhawana Gupta and camera person Mritunjay Kumar were sitting had rammed Gagan due to which she suffered injuries. Also, Gupta hurled casteist remarks against Gagan, stated the FIRThe Senior Counsel for Gupta argued that she did not know the complainant and it was a sudden accident that led to the alleged spurs, and how would she know the caste of the complainant?Considering the submissions the Court noted that the offences under Sections 279, 337 IPC are attributed to the vehicle's driver. As far as the offence under Section 427 IPC regarding “Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees” is concerned, it relates to the damage of a mobile phone that had fallen because of the impact of an accident."It would be a travesty of justice to arrive at a finding of a prima facie case that the petitioner, who was not driving and was a passenger, had caused impact with the vehicle with the intention or knowledge that the driver will cause an accident, the phone that the victim might be carrying would fall, which in turn would cause a loss of more than Rs.50. Thus, by such an imagination, the ingredients of mischief could not have been invoked against the petitioner," opined the bench.Setting aside the the FIR for an offence under Sections 279, 337, 427 IPC, the Court said, "Even if all allegations of causing damage to the phone are taken to be truthful, it will not constitute any offense against the petitioner, punishable under Sections 279, 337, 427 IPC."On allegation of passing casteist remarks and insulting the complainant publicly for belonging to SC/ST, the Court said, "Offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste."It further added that there is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preven- tion of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable.To underscore that the offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste, reliance was placed upon Hitesh Verma v. The State of Uttarakhand &anr., [(2020) 10 SCC 710]Justice Chitkara explained that to establish a prima facie violation of Section 3(s) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989, the FIR/complaint and the investigation must have disclosed and established all the following constituents:(a) The accused must not belong to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.(b) The victim must belong to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.(c) The accused must have abused any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name.(d) Such abuse must be in any place within public view.(e) The accused had personal knowledge of the victim or their family to enable the Court to presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim unless the contrary is proved by the accused.While noting that it remains undisputed that the...

Caste Hurl Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes FIR Against Times Now Reporter Bhawana Gupta, Says She Didn't Know Complainant's Caste

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags