The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday quashed the first information report (FIR) filed against broadcast journalist Bhawna Gupta under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, saying that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law,
Ms. Gupta, along with a cameraman and driver, was arrested by the Punjab police last May for allegedly hitting a woman with a speeding car and hurling casteist abuses against her, while on the way to cover the inauguration of an Aam Aadmi Clinic in Ludhiana. A case was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the SC/ST Act. They were later granted bail and approached the High Court, seeking the quashing of the FIR.
In his order, Justice Anoop Chitkara said, “...it is a fit case where the continuation of criminal proceedings shall amount to an abuse of the process of law, and the Court invokes its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC [Code of Criminal Procedure] and quashes the FIR and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner.”
‘Unaware of victim’s caste’
Mr. Chitkara said that it remains undisputed that the accused, Ms. Gupta, who is the petitioner in this case, 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,” said the order.
Ms. Gupta claimed that the FIR was politically motivated, and registered at the instance of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). The petitioner added that she had no intention to abuse the complainant knowing that she belonged to the Scheduled Caste community with the words attributed to her, because she was visiting the said location for covering a political event, had never met the complainant in her life, and was unaware of her caste; as such, she insisted that there was no question of her violating Section 3(s) of the SC/ST Act.
‘Not the driver’
She also submitted that even if the vehicle had met with an accident, it could not be presumed that she had caused it, given that she was not the driver. As such, no case either under the Motor Vehicles Act or causing loss to the mobile phone which had fallen due to the accident’s impact could be made out against her, Ms. Gupta said.
“After going through the submissions, 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 ₹50. Thus, by such an imagination, the ingredients of mischief could not have been invoked against the petitioner. 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; as such, the FIR for an offense under Sections 279, 337, 427 IPC are, as a result of this, quashed and set aside,” the order said.
