Caste remark against Yuvraj: No intention to insult, but probe under SC/ST Act to continue, says HC
Yuvraj was booked under Sections 153 A and 153 B of the IPC, read with Section 3 (1) (u) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention and Atrocities) Act, on the complaint of a Hansi-based lawyer and activist, Rajat Kalsan.
3 min read
The court said that the probe against Yuvraj for an offence under of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act will continue as per law. (File)Granting partial relief to cricketer Yuvraj Singh in a casteist remark case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that he did not commit any offence under IPC Section 153 A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) and Section 153 B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration).
The bench of Justice Amol Rattan Singh, however, dismissed Yuvraj’s petition seeking quashing of FIr against him. The court said that the probe against Yuvraj for an offence under of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act will continue as per law.
“As regards the commission of any offence punishable under the provisions of the Act of 1989, the petition is dismissed, with the investigating agency to continue with its investigation wholly impartially and independently, to come to its own conclusion as to whether any such offence has been committed by the petitioner or not”, held the bench.
Yuvraj was booked under Sections 153 A and 153 B of the IPC, read with Section 3 (1) (u) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention and Atrocities) Act, on the complaint of a Hansi-based lawyer and activist, Rajat Kalsan.
Kalsan, through his lawyer Arjun Sheoran, had alleged that Yuvraj, during an Instagram live had made an objectionable remark while referring to another cricketer. Yuvraj had moved to HC seeking quashing of the FIR against him. The petitioner Yuvraj Singh, through counsel Senior Advocate Puneet Bali and Advocate Uday Agnihotri, has been arguing that he is a victim of gross persecution and harassment at the hands of complainant.
The bench, meanwhile, held that “when a word denoting a caste or class of people who belong to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe is used in a derogatory sense, I would agree with counsel for complainant at least prima facie, that it has become common parlance to use it as a pejorative word, thereby bringing indignity to that entire class of people, if it is used to its describe a person not behaving in a ‘good manner’, in the eyes of the person using the word.”
It added that the “petitioner very obviously did not actually intend to insult anyone, yet, he having used a word pertaining to a specific Scheduled Caste, in a derogatory sense”, the FIR cannot be quashed.
You May Like
