CRM No. M-32708 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-32708 of 2009 Date of Decision : November 08, 2011 Dr. Suresh Kumar son of Shri Sunder Dass .... PETITIONER Vs. Prithvi Singh so of Shri Ramji Lal and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the complaint under Section 3 of the Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1989) and under Sections 323, 506, 120-B and 34 IPC as also order dated 11.03.2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, vide which the petitioner has been summoned and order dated CRM No. M-32708 of 2009 2 26.02.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which the revision preferred by the petitioner challenging the summoning order stands dismissed . During the course of hearing, counsel for the petitioner has restricted his challenge to the summoning order and the revisional order relating to the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner under Section 3 of the Act, 1989. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 3 of the 1989 Act, it is required that the complaint should disclose that the accused was aware of the fact that the complainant belongs to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. The said fact has not been mentioned in the complaint and, therefore, the complaint and the summoning order under Section 3 of the Act, 1989 cannot sustain. In support of this contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Rajinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 2002 (4) RCR (Criminal) 245 and Dr. Satish Kumar Thukral vs. Prem, 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 491. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted that the provisions of the Act do not mandate mentioning of the fact that the accused was aware of the fact that the complainant belonged to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. In any case, he contends that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the complainant belongs to the schedule caste or scheduled tribe as the petitioner is a medical practitioner and running his own clinic in the said locality. He, accordingly, contends that the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner would not be applicable to the facts of the case. CRM No. M-32708 of 2009 3 I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It is not in dispute that there is no mention of the fact in the complaint that the petitioner-accused was aware of the caste of the complainant. The contention of the respondent that the petitioner was aware of the fact that he belongs to the scheduled caste and, therefore, had used words which were malicious with an intention to insult and intimidate the complainant, cannot be accepted as the provision of the Act, 1989 has to be read in a strict manner as it entails criminal intent and leads to punishment. The provisions of Section 3 of the Act, 1989 when read in the light of the intention with which it has been enacted as is apparent from the language as mentioned in Clause 10 of Section 3, which states that the words should have been used intentionally. Intention can only be inferred where the fact about a person being belonging to a particular caste or tribe is known to him and, therefore, the mandate would be that such a fact should be so mentioned in the complaint itself. The judgments in the cases of Rajinder Kumar and Dr. Satish Kumar Thukral (supra) also are on the same lines and, therefore, are applicable to the case in hand. Merely because a person is practising in the locality, cannot be stated to be a ground or reason that he would be aware of the fact that a particular person belongs to a particular caste or tribe. The language contained in the complaint also does not reflect the same. In view of the above, the present petition is partly allowed by quashing the summoning order dated 11.03.2005 relating to Section 3 of the Act, 1989. Consequently, the revisional order dated 26.02.2009 qua the dismissal of the revision petition relating to offence under Section 3 of the Act, 1989, for which he has been summoned, also stands set aside to CRM No. M-32708 of 2009 4 that limited extent. Qua the other offences, for which the petitioner has been summoned, summoning order shall stand. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) November 08, 2011 JUDGE pj