When does referring to a person by their profession become an insult? Allahabad High Court rules on ‘dhobin’ remark

What was the case?

• The alleged dispute occurred between the parties after the complainant washerwoman demanded her wages from the accused.
• The complainant alleged that the accused used a casteist remark and called her ‘dhobin’.
• A complaint was subsequently filed and a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the accused under sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act.
• A summoning order was passed by the special judge under the SC/ST Act in Gautam Buddh Nagar.
• Feeling aggrieved by this, the accused approached the high court.

Arguments

• The counsel for the accused submitted that the trial court committed gross illegality by converting the protest petition into a complaint without either accepting or rejecting the final police report.
• He further submitted that a thorough and impartial investigation was carried out by the investigating officer, who found that the allegations made in the FIR were false and fabricated.
• It was argued that the trial court, without considering the evidence collected during the investigation, merely satisfied the wish of the complainant by converting the protest petition into a complaint.
• On the other hand, the additional government advocate and the counsel for the informant submitted that once the court has converted the protest petition into a complaint and has thereafter summoned the accused after recording the statements of the complainant and her witnesses, the accused could not challenge the earlier order converting the protest petition into a complaint.

Court’s observations

• It is true that conversion of a protest petition into a complaint requires that the court must disagree with the police report submitted under Section 173(2) (police report on completion of probe) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
• Now the question arises whether such disagreement must find specific reflection in the court’s order.
• A specific recital of disagreement is not mandatory. If the court decides to convert the protest petition into a complaint, it inherently implies that the final report has not been accepted.
• It is apparent that the alleged dispute occurred between the parties after the complainant demanded her wages from the accused.
• Moreover, the complainant has barely mentioned that the accused used the word ‘dhobin’.

• It is an admitted fact that the complainant herself stated that she used to wash the accused’s clothes and, on the alleged date, had gone to their house to demand the wages for the clothes washed by her.
• She further stated that while she was returning, the accused met her on the way, where she again demanded her wages.
• These facts clearly reflect that a contractual relationship existed between the parties, wherein the complainant used to wash the clothes of the accused.
• The question, therefore, arises whether the use of a word indicating the profession of the victim would constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act.
• Merely calling a person by referring to his or her profession would not by itself attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act, unless it is established that those words were intentionally used with intent to humiliate the victim belonging to the community of SC/ST.