CASE BRIEF: NAVNEET KRISHAN vs STATE AND ANR

CASE NAME	Navneet Krishan v. State and Anr.
CITATION	Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1090/2011
COURT	Rajasthan High Court
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta
PETITIONERS	Navneet Krishan
RESPONDENT	State and Another
DECIDED ON	decided on 5th April, 2013

INTRODUCTION

The maxim ‘innocent until proved guilty’ is proved by the Court in this case. This case deals with the power and duties of public officials along with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/STs Act. Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, there are severe charges of public servant misconduct and caste-based discrimination in the case Navneet Krishan vs. State & Anr., decided by the Rajasthan High Court. The lawsuit is centered on a public servant abusing their official authority and breaking laws meant to shield people from caste-based discrimination and persecution.

Sections 165 and 166 of the Indian Penal Code, which address misbehavior by public officers, are among the major offenses at issue in this particular case. Public servants who attempt to obtain any expensive item without giving proper consideration while acting in their official capacity are subject to criminal prosecution under Section 165 of the IPC. Public employees who willfully disregard Section 166 are subject to penalties in a manner which causes harm to individuals.

Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is allegedly violated in this instance as well. This section makes it illegal to dehumanize, degrade, or intimidate members of the SC/ST community, particularly in public places. This clause aims to shield underprivileged people against caste-based mistreatment, especially at the hands of powerful people.

Thus, the case highlights two crucial issues: the systematic oppression of members of Scheduled Castes through discriminatory practices and the abuse of authority by public servants in the performance of their duties. In order to address these problems, the relevant legal framework holds public employees accountable for their misbehavior and provides extra protection to populations who are particularly vulnerable to caste-based atrocities.

FACTS OF THE CASE

At the relevant time, the petitioner was employed as Hanumangarh’s district supply officer. The Hanumangarh Gas Agency is owned by respondent No. 2, who was also a licensed distributor of LPG cylinders. On February 28, 2007, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint in the Hanumangarh court of the learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate. According to the complaint, the complainant was the owner of Hanumangarh Gas Agency, which was licensed to distribute LPG cylinders in the neighbourhood, and a member of the Scheduled Caste. The complainant claimed that the petitioner had been harassing him for a considerable amount of time for giving gas cylinders to unapproved individuals who were close to the petitioner. The petitioner threatened to jeopardize his business if the complainant did not follow their orders, which is why he tried to oppose this illegal action. Additionally, it was claimed that the accused purchased three gas cylinders on September 18, 2006 and that his subordinate, after threatening the complainant with terrible repercussions, purchased one gas cylinder on December 2, 2006.
The complainant further claimed that the accused petitioner had handed him a show-cause notice in an attempt to harass him. Additionally, it is claimed that the accused petitioner repeatedly solicited unlawful gratification from the complainant.

The complainant further claimed that on January 9, 2007, a single gas cylinder was handed to Kishan Kumar Aaswani on the side of the road as a result of technical issues with his tractor trolley bearing No. HYEK-6512 was utilized to supply gas cylinders. Furthermore, it was claimed that although the accused knew the complainant’s actions were legitimate, they nevertheless unfairly sent him a notice about the delivery of gas cylinders on the side of the road while the complainant was conducting agency business as required by law. Furthermore, it is claimed that on 1.2.2007, between 3.30 and 4.00 pm, he sent a truck to Hanumangarh Town with the license plate RJ-07 G 2022 in order to facilitate the distribution of gas cylinders through hawkers and deliver them to customers’ homes. The complaint further claimed that the vehicle parked in front of Shanti Nursing Home was seized by the District Supply Officer of Hanumangarh, carrying six filled commercial gas cylinders and 150 empty home gas cylinders, without any reason or explanation. Sardari Lal Sethi and Bharat Bhushan, the complainant’s employees, asked the accused petitioner to confirm that the vehicle was transported to Hanumangarh Town following the appropriate notification.

The complainant also claimed that Bharat Bhushan had summoned him to the location of the truck’s seizure. When he arrived, he asked the accused to refrain from seizing the truck since it had been brought for the legal distribution of the gas cylinders under his orders. However, the accused ignored the complainant’s request. In this regard, the complainant filed a complaint with the District Collector of Hanumangarh and the Minister of Food and Supplies.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the accused had violated Sections 165–166 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(XI) of the SC/ST Act by abusing him and preventing him from distributing the gas cylinders as required under the license.
Whether the accused is a powerful guy and that was compelled to make a complaint with the court because Hanumangarh Town police authorities would not lodge a report against the accused petitioner.

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Argument on behalf of the petitioner

The complaint brought in this case against the petitioner is completely unlawful and amounts to egregious abuse of the court system.
He argues that it is improper to prosecute the petitioner in this matter since the necessary authorization to do so under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not obtained prior to starting legal action against the petitioner.
He goes on to say that the complaint’s processes were started as retaliation for the petitioner’s seizure of the complainant’s gas cylinders, which were being used for illicit distribution.
He has used the Hon’ble Apex Court’s ruling in Raj Kishor Roy Vs. Kamleshwar Pandey and Anr., as evidence for his claims. Therefore, he begs that the order that took cognizance against the petitioner and all other following procedures be set aside because they both amounted to a misuse of the legal system.

Argument on behalf of the respondent

Learned counsel Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2 Shri Dron Kaushik vehemently rejected the arguments put forth by the petitioner’s knowledgeable attorney, arguing that the accused petitioner violated the order taking cognizance against him because he acted far beyond the bounds of his authority and mistreated the complainant in a public setting. As a result, this court should not get involved.

JUDGMENT

This Court must carefully consider how the prosecution may be affected by the delay in this particular instance. The complainant was visibly upset over the confiscation process that was started against him on January 9, 2007, concerning the seizure of his tractor trolley and cylinders. Regarding an incident that occurred on 1.2.2007, the complainant has filed a complaint, claiming that the petitioner unlawfully confiscated his truck. Even if it is considered that the complainant filed the complaint in relation to the purportedly illegal seizure that occurred on 1.2.2007, the complaint is still extremely late as it was filed on 28.2.2007, which is 27 days after the purported event. The complainant’s claims regarding the occurrence are entirely fabricated and untrue at their core. Aside from that, no witness has backed up the complainant’s allegation that on 2.2.2007, the petitioner assaulted him in a public setting. Undoubtedly, on 9.1.2007, the accused petitioner seized the complainant’s trolley while performing his official duties. As a result, the petitioner, a public servant, cannot be prosecuted without obtaining the State Government’s approval in accordance with Section 197 Cr.P.C. After considering the aforementioned points, it is clear that the misc. Petition should be granted and that the petitioner should be held accountable for the offenses under Section 166 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act deserve to be quashed.

CONCLUSION

This case pertains to delay in lodging of FIR and Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act. It deals with the process of what happens when there is a delay in lodging of FIR by the competent officials and the liability of public officials for not meeting their duties. When a FIR is not filed right away, the court must find a good reason why the delay occurred. If this explanation isn’t provided, the wait could be lethal. It may not be sufficient to dismiss such actions on the grounds that the accusations were made in haste or provided a skewed account of what happened. In these situations, the court should carefully review the facts presented to it because an aggrieved party who lost in civil court may file a criminal complaint merely to harass the other party with ill intentions or as a cover-up to exact revenge.

It is not appropriate for irate and disgruntled litigants to simply use the criminal court’s jurisdiction as a vent for their resentment. It is not appropriate to let the legal system turn into a tool for persecution and intimidation. The court may conclude that, given the facts and circumstances of the case, filing a formal complaint with the express intent to harass the other party out of personal animosity and drag them into protracted criminal proceedings constitutes an abuse of the legal system.

Hence, the Court should carefully look into the matter and decide on the merits of the case based on the allegations and defenses. The court is required to carefully examine all the evidence available.