Crl. Misc. No. M-30304 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-30304 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 1st November, 2011 Dr. Krishan Singh Dangi ……… Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ………… Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raja Sharma, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Ravi Partap, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer for quashing of complaint No. 258 RBT dated 31.7.2006/20.12.2006 titled Sikandar Singh vs. Krishan Singh Dangi (Annexure P-6), order dated 19.7.2010 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Panchkula (Annexure P-13) upholding the order dated 6.7.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panchkula (Annexure P-11) summoning the petitioner to join trial for offence punishable under Section 3(1) (x) of the Schedules Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as also all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. During the course of hearing counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the complaint and the preliminary evidence led by the petitioner before the trial Court it has not been stated by the complainant that the petitioner-accused was not a member of Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. He contends that according to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused- petitioner was not member of Crl. Misc. No. M-30304 of 2010 -2- Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe and in the absence of this averment the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is not made out and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been summoned by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panchkula vide order dated 6.7.2009 at the first instance. The revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Panchkula vide a order dated 19.7.2010 without appreciating this contention. Reliance in support of the contention raised by him has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of A.P. & Others 2008(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 171. On this basis he prays for allowing the present petition by granting the prayer made therein. Counsel for the respondent-complainant, on the other hand, contends that the fact that the complainant belong to the Scheduled Caste was well known to the petitioner and he had intentionally insulted and intimidated the complainant with an intention to humiliate him within public view. Both the parties were well known to each other as the petitioner was the Director of the Department in which the complainant was working at the relevant time. There was no dispute with regard to the caste of the petitioner and the only protection which had been granted is to the members of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe as they cannot be an accused under the Act. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the present petition. Counsel could not rebut the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that neither in the complaint nor in the preliminary evidence led by the complainant before the trial Court the caste of the petitioner has been disclosed nor it has been stated that he does not belong to the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records and the evidence led by the complainant before the Magistrate. Perusal of the complaint and the preliminary evidence led by the complainant does not disclose anywhere the caste of the petitioner nor has it Crl. Misc. No. M-30304 of 2010 -3- been stated that the petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, which is relevant for the case in hand reads as follows :- “3(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe :- xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intention to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.” Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with this Section in the case of Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of A.P. & Others (supra) after reproduction of the said Section held as follows in para 6 of the judgment :- “6. In the instant case, the allegation of respondent No.3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.5.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No.3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated within intent to humiliate respondent No.3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.” In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court according to which one of the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is that the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe which is missing in the complaint as also in the preliminary evidence led by him before the Magistrate, the offence for which the petitioner has been summoned i.e. 3(1)(x) of the Act is not made out. Crl. Misc. No. M-30304 of 2010 -4- In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. As the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act have not been stated in the complaint or in the preliminary evidence led by the complainant before the trial Court complaint No. 258 RBT dated 31.7.2006/20.12.2006 titled Sikandar Singh vs. Krishan Singh Dangi (Annexure P-6), summoning order dated 6.7.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panchkula (Annexure P-11) and order dated 19.7.2010 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Panchkula (Annexure P-13) upholding the order summoning the petitioner to join trial for offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as also all consequential proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed. Ordered accordingly. 1st November, 2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE