Bhangi Remark: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Yuvraj Singh

Punjab and Haryana High Court has recently rejected the petition seeking quashing of FIR against the cricketer Yuvraj Singh, in Hansi, Haryana for using the word 'Bhangi' during an Instagram live.Singh was booked for alleged commission of offences under S.153A and S.153B of IPC and S.3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Justice Amol Rattan Singh observed that the offences punishable under Sections 153-A and 153-B of the IPC are not found to be committed by Singh even prima facie. However, regarding whether the offences under S.3(1)(u) and S.3(1)(s) of the SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 had been committed, it held that the investigation agency must complete its investigation and must come to its own conclusion.It observed,"even if the intention of the user of the word may not be so but the result thereof is to cause 'indignities/humiliation to any member of a scheduled caste, by reference to any name of a caste as a derogatory word or a pejorative, the intention of the user of such word may become insignificant, looking at the aims and objective of the Act."Also Read: ['Bhangi' Remark] "No Intention To Insult But Word Used In Derogatory Sense": P&H HC Grants Partial Relief To Yuvraj SinghThe facts of the case are as follows: In April 2020, Yuvraj Singh and Rohit Sharma in a live chat on Instagram, referred to Yuzvendra Chahal and Kuldeep Yadav as Bhangi in a statement, "Yaar ye Bhangi log kuch nahin karte hain." The Complainant who is an advocate and social activist saw the video and filed an FIR in Hansi district of Haryana avowing that since the petitioner is a famous cricketer loved by millions, usage of such a derogatory term has insulted the whole Dalit community. This was followed by the current petition seeking quashing the said FIR via exercising S.482 of CrPC. Petitioner's arguments Advocate Puneet Bali for the petitioner primarily submitted that neither the complainant (Respondent no. 2) had come to the Court with clean hands being a person known to file false cases against celebrities and nor did the complainant had any locus standi to register such an FIR. Asserting that his client was a victim of gross persecution and harassment, the counsel maintained that the filing of FIR because of such malicious intentions was an abuse of the process of law. Stating that the word 'Bhangi' was not directed at the complainant or any member of the Dalit community, the Counsel asserted that this FIR had been filed to extract money from the petitioner and to exploit his celebrity status. The Counsel also gave a slapdash explanation of using the word Bhangi stating that the remarks made by the petitioner were meant for the inebriated state during which Yuzvendra Chahal made his father dance at a marriage ceremony and hence the comment (bhang – intoxicant) was a friendly remark directed at petitioner's friends and colleagues who are not a part of "respected Dalit community". The counsel further submitted that neither the ingredients under S.153A and S153B of IPC had been met nor the essentials of S.3(1)(u) of the SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 could be fulfilled to make out an offence. In addition to this, the Counsel emphasized that even the FIR did not aver that the petitioner had promoted enmity between different groups and neither was that the intention of the petitioner. And the fact that petitioner released a public statement soon thereafter stating that "he does not disparage anyone on the basis of colour, caste, creed or gender and that he truly believes in the dignity of life and has respect for each individual without exception" and apologized for his remarks shows that the petitioner's intentions were not falsely placed and therefore, the Counsel stated that the FIR deserved to be quashed. Respondent's arguments: The first and foremost argument presented by the counsel for the respondent was that since the petition was still being investigated, the court could not quash the FIR and thus, the petition should not be entertained. Further, the counsel stated that since the respondent was a Dalit social activist belonging to the Scheduled caste community and the petitioner belonged to the Jat-Sikh community and the petitioner's statements were made on an online platform being heard by millions of his followers, the complainant did have locus standi in the case and that the petitioner had tried to increase enmity between different castes. The counsel of respondent further referred to the Apex Court's judgment in Union of India v. the State of Maharashtra where it was observed by the apex court, "to treat SCs & STs as persons who are prone to lodge false reports under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act for taking revenge or otherwise as monetary benefits made available to them in case of their being subjected to such ...

Bhangi Remark: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Yuvraj Singh

Rashmi Bagri

Court partly allowed his plea by quashing charges under Sections 153-A & 153-B of IPC.

Tags