Criminal Misc. No.53916-M of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No.53916-M of 2006 Date of Decision:16.02.2009 Ranjit Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. H.S. Hooda, Senior Advocate with Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kanwarpal Singh Gogia, Advocate for the complainant. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Ranjit Singh son of Kuldip Singh under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint dated 1.6.2004 bearing caption `Balwinder Singh v. Ranjit Singh & Others' Annexure P.1 filed by Balwinder Singh as also the order dated 29.8.2006 Annexure P.4 passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, vide which the petitioner along with respondents No.3 to 6 have been summoned to face trial under Sections 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, `the Act') and under Sections 500/506/323 of Indian Penal Code. The facts in brief are that Balwinder Singh respondent- Criminal Misc. No.53916-M of 2006 -2- complainant belongs to Sansi caste, which has been declared as Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe by the Punjab Government. On 9.5.2004 around 6:30 P.M, when he went to the shop of Rachhpal Singh to purchase the articles, at that time, the accused were standing there. They asked him to whom he is going to cast his vote. On this, he replied that he will cast his vote as per his wish, being his fundamental right. On this, he was abused by the accused saying that “Kuttia Sansia, we will throw you out from the village and will lit your house on fire.” He was caught hold of by Sukhjinder Singh and Kuldip Singh accused – due to which his turban got torn. On being raised alarm, Chanchal Singh son of Mela Singh and Sucha Singh son of Hardip Singh were attracted to the spot. They saved him from the accused. He was threatened by the accused while going away that if he did not change his decision and did not act as per their wish, then he will not be allowed to live in the village and will be killed. He approached the SHO of Police Station, Dhariwal for initiating action against the accused with regard to the above said occurrence. The latter initially assured the former that the action will be taken after the elections, but later on, he refused to initiate the action. Balwinder Singh moved an application dated 17.5.2004 to SSP, Gurdaspur and higher officials for taking legal action against the accused, but all in vain. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Mr. H.S. Hooda, Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner argued that on the complaint made by the complainant/ respondent - Balwinder Singh to the SSP, Gurdaspur a detailed inquiry was conducted and it was found that as a matter of fact, he was not abused in the name of Criminal Misc. No.53916-M of 2006 -3- his caste nor was given beatings by anybody. As per this inquiry, it was only a verbal duel and nothing more. In the inquiry proceedings, except him, none else came to support the allegations being levelled by him. In two more inquiries, the allegations levelled by him were found to be false. He has concealed these facts despite having knowledge of the same just to get the petitioner summoned in a false case so as to tarnish his image. All the inquiries have been conducted by the officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. They all have reached the same conclusion. The complaint Annexure P.1 has been filed due to political rivalry and factionalism in the village. The petitioner was employed as an Assistant Advocate General in the Office of Advocate General, Punjab at the time when the alleged occurrence took place. Even now he is doing the job of Senior Deputy Advocate General in the office of Advocate General, Haryana. He is practising as an advocate since the year 1991 in this Court and is residing at Chandigarh. He was not present in the village on the day of alleged occurrence. It was not considered by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that the ingredients of the offence under Section 3 and 4 of the Act are missing. The complainant has not mentioned as to for which candidate, he was asked to cast his vote, which is an essential ingredient for the offence under Section 3(1)(vii) of the Act. The words mentioned in the complaint are to the effect that the complainant was asked as to whom he is going to cast his vote. It is not mentioned that in whose favour the accused wanted him to cast his vote. Further, the offence under Section 3(x) of the Act is also not made out as it has nowhere been pleaded that the name of the caste of the complainant was used by the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 6 with an intention to insult him on the basis of the Criminal Misc. No.53916-M of 2006 -4- same. Even, if the allegations contained in the complaint are taken to be true, nonetheless, no offence under Section 3 of the Act is made out. He further puts that calling a person by the name of his caste is not an offence until and unless it is proved that it was taken with an intention to humiliate or insult him by the name of his caste. Thus, the summoning order Annexure P.4 has been passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur without looking into the bare provisions of the Act. The application Annexure P.2 and affidavit Annexure P.3 moved by Sucha Singh CW3 proves on record that the complainant is indulging in unfair practice by fabricating the evidence to corroborate version/ allegations levelled by him against the petitioner. Sucha Singh has clearly mentioned in his affidavit Annexure P.3 filed in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur that neither the accused abused the complainant in any way, nor they called him “Kuttia Sansia”. It has also been mentioned that no slaps or kick blows were given to the complainant. These facts clearly corroborate the various inquiries conducted by the three different Deputy Superintendents of Police. Chanchal Singh and Sucha Singh PWs got examined by the complainant in the complaint case had never appeared in the inquiries conducted by the police. Thus, the entire proceedings initiated by the complainant- respondent by filing the complaint Annexure P.1, are an abuse of the process of the Court. Sequelly, the complaint Annexure P.1 as well as the summoning order Annexure P.4 are liable to be quashed. In response, Mr. Kanwalpal Singh Gogia, Advocate representing the complainant maintained that as is established by the evidence on record, the words `Kuttia Sansia' were addressed by the Criminal Misc. No.53916-M of 2006 -5- petitioner along with others to intentionally insult the complainant. That being so, there is nothing wrong with the impugned order. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has submitted that the inquiries were held by various officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and the allegations levelled by the complainant- respondent were found to be false. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. Section 3(1)(vii) and (x) of the Act read as under:- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe:- “(vii) forces or intimidates a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe not to vote or to vote to a particular candidate or to vote in a manner other than that provided by law; (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. Section 3(1)(vii) ibid. has to be understood to read:- “forces or intimidates a person known to be a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe not to vote or to vote to a particular candidate or to vote in a manner other than that provided by law.” The impugned order is absolutely silent that the petitioner had forced or intimidated the complainant Balwinder Singh not to vote or to vote to a particular candidate or to vote in a manner other than that provided by law. The complaint or the evidence does not disclose the name of the particular candidate in whose favour the complainant was forced or Criminal Misc. No.53916-M of 2006 -6- intimidated to vote or not to vote or to vote in a manner other than that provided by law. In the absence of such evidence, prima facie, the offence under Section 3(1)(vii) is not made out. The allegations in the complaint are that “on hearing this, accused No.1 Ranjit Singh and accused No.3 Sarabit Singh exhorted and said that it is already known to them that I am not going to cast vote to their party. Thus “Kuttia Sansia, we will throw you out of the village and lit your house on fire.” The record is quite barren to show the evidence. Palpably, it has nowhere been manifested that the complainant was called as “Kuttia Sansia, intentionally or was intimidated with intent to humiliate him within the public view. Simply addressing a person by his Caste without any intention to insult or intimidate does not constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. In re: Anil Kumar Pandey v. Daulat Prasad, 2006(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 404, it has been observed that “merely utterance of word “Chamara” without there being an intention to insult or humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste shall not make out the offence under Section 3(1)(x) ibid.” However, it was held that prima-facie offence under Sections 294 and 506(II) IPC has been made out. Thus, herein, it boils down that the evidence falls short off ex-facie establishing the offence under Section 3(1)(vii) and (x) ibid. There are specific allegations in the complaint that accused No.1 (Ranjit Singh son of Kuldip Singh- petitioner), accused No.2 (Sarabjit Singh) and accused No.3 (Ranjit Singh son of Nazar Singh) gave fist blows to the complainant due to which turban and clothes of the complainant were torn. At this juncture, Mr. Hooda urged that there being no medical evidence, the offence under Section 323 of IPC is not made out. This Criminal Misc. No.53916-M of 2006 -7- contention is unacceptable. The offence under Section 323 of IPC hardly requires medico legal examination report. There are also allegations in the complaint that in the meantime, accused No.4 (Sukhjinder Singh) and accused No.5 (Kuldip Singh son of Ajaib Singh) caught hold of the complainant from his hair. The learned trial Magistrate has mentioned with specificity in the impugned order that Balwinder Singh complainant as CW1, Chanchal Singh CW2 and Sucha Singh CW3 have corroborated the allegations in the complaint. Thus, to my mind, no case is made out for quashing the summoning order with respect to the offences under Section 500/506/323 of IPC. Mr. Hooda making much capital out of Annexure P.5 has sought to argue that as would be apparent from this document, the allegations levelled by the complainant Balwinder Singh against the petitioner along with others were found to be false. Thus, in view of this report too, the summoning order in its entirety is liable to be quashed. I regret my inability to be one with Mr. Hooda for the reasons to be apportioned hereinafter. Mere opinion of a Police Officer as to the innocence or guilt of the accused is of no relevance and its admissibility is doubtful. In re: Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997(4) Recent Criminal Reports 58 (SC), the investigator arrived at the conclusion that the accused were innocent. The challan was put up in Court. The Apex Court ruled that the conclusion of Investigating Officer is not legally admissible in evidence. Court cannot base its verdict on basis of conclusions arrived at by the Investigating Officer. The trial Court is required to base its conclusion solely on evidence adduced during the trial. Harking back to the facts of the instant case, of course, as per Criminal Misc. No.53916-M of 2006 -8- Annexure P.5, the allegations levelled against the petitioner and others were found to be false, but merely on the basis of Annexure P.5, the complaint or the impugned order cannot be quashed in relation to the commission of the offences under Section 500/506/323 of IPC. The stated inquiry report can be produced and proved in defence by examining the Inquiry Officer. The acceptability thereof would be determined by the Court in the light of the cross-examination of the Inquiry Officer. The Apex Court in re: Sanapareddy Maheedhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2008(1) Law Herald (SC) 101, has held as under:- “That the High Court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and should not stall the investigation and/ or prosecution except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence or that the allegations contained in the FIR do not constitute any cognizable offence or that the prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is convinced that it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the court. The High Court has to bear in mind that judicial intervention at the threshold of the legal process initiated against a person accused of committing offence is highly detrimental to the larger public and societal interest. If the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint discloses commission of some crime, then the High Court must keep its hands off and allow the investigating agency to complete the investigation without any fetter and also refrain from passing Criminal Misc. No.53916-M of 2006 -9- order which may impede the trial. The High Court should not go into the merits and demerits of the allegations simply because the petitioner alleges malus animus against the author of the FIR or the complainant.” In the instant case, the allegations in Annexure P.1 and evidence reveal the commission of offence under Sections 500/506/323 of IPC. So Annexures P.1 and P.4 cannot be quashed qua these offences. In view of the preceding discussion, this petition is partly allowed quashing the complaint Annexure P.1 as well as the summoning order Annexure P.4 qua the commission of the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Disposed of accordingly. February 16, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes