New Delhi: No criminal offence is "ex-facie" made out against Union Minister V K Singh, a Delhi court said while dismissing a criminal complaint seeking lodging of FIR against the former Army chief for his alleged "dog" remarks in the aftermath of burning alive of two Haryana Dalit children.
The court said for no reason Singh's statement can be seen as a remark made to demean any caste or creed and it does not see the comment as an "analogy drawn between the dog (as an animal) and humans (of a particular caste or creed)".
"A single word cannot be read in isolation and a different hue be given to it by twisting it and reading it selectively and by associating it to a particular caste. Statement has to be read in whole and when done so, it does not at all sounds derogatory or intended to degrade anyone or calculated to spread hatred in the society among different castes or creed," Metropolitan Magistrate Muneesh Garg said.
The court said "as no criminal offence was even exfacie attracted in the matter, the present application under section 156(3) of the CrPC is dismissed."
Also Read: Govt defends VK Singh, says Rahul Gandhi trying to give political colour
The court further said in its order, "there was nothing in the statement to show even prima facie that V K Singh meant to say that the victims were akin to dogs or to be treated as so and on the face of it, the statement can be read to have been made with realization and feeling in mind that Central Government was being blamed for an act which, in the opinion of Singh, had nothing or much to do with government and was not sponsored by it or encouraged due to any act which could directly be attributed to its failure to maintain law and order...
"And he wanted to hit back in irk at the critics by giving the example of stoning of a dog that even for an act like dog stoning probably Central Government would be blamed when it cannot validly be blamed so."
The court passed the order on a criminal complaint filed by complainant advocate Satya Prakash Gautam who said that the Minister of State for External Affairs had hurt the sentiments of the Dalit community with such remarks.
Singh had kicked up a storm with his alleged remarks in connection with the Faridabad incident, that the government cannot be blamed if anyone throws a stone at a dog.
The court held that it does not see that Singh's comment was intended to compare dalits with dog.
"Merely because of the fact that those two victims belonged to a particular community (Scheduled Caste, as mentioned in the complaint), such a comment made cannot be taken out of context and blown out of proportion to mean that Singh intended to call the victims as 'dogs'," it said.
It added that there was nothing in the statement to suggest that it was borne out of any "hatred or illwill" of Singh against any member of a particular community or against a community at large.
The magistrate said such statement cannot be read as to have been made with an intention and targeted at spreading hatred and disharmony among people of different community in the country.
"In the political scenario, each word spoke by a leader is weighed and each word which rolls out of the mouth of a leader whom people elect is heard with an expectation that it would comfort and uplift the masses. Each golden word is revered and cherished.
"Similarly, the statements which are construed as showing taciturn and indifferent attitude of a leader and statements which are read as one which denounce responsibility (or may be read as so) for a mishappening may be loathed at. In the same manner, certain statements may also be misconstrued by some," the court said.
It also rejected the submission of the complainant that provision of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Act was violated saying it was devoid of merit.
The complainant had said, "It is insulting and humiliating to compare my community with a dog. How can police say there is nothing derogatory? I want action against them for saying there is no evidence".
"Summon, try, punish and confiscate his entire property which the accused person had collected through unfair means by exploiting the religious feelings of innocent citizens, under appropriate sections SC/ST (POA) Act, IT Act and IPC," the complaint had said.
The police, in its action taken report, had earlier told the court that Singh had not made any "specific derogatory and humiliating statement" warranting his prosecution on the complaint for his alleged "dog" remark.
The report had said that no cognisable offence was made out against Singh for his alleged remarks on October 21.
The court had on October 29 directed the police to file the ATR on the criminal complaint seeking lodging of FIR against Singh under provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Information Technology Act and IPC.
