Criminal Misc. No. M-27303 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-27303 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:July 26, 2010 Birender Singh and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Sanjay Vashisth,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Satyaveer Singh Yadav, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana Mr.G.P. Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2- Complainant ** Sabina, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short`Cr.P.C.') for quashing of criminal complaint No. 227 of 2003 (Annexure P1) under Section 3(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (for short `the Act') and for setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Chief Judciial Criminal Misc. No. M-27303 of 2008 2 Magistrate dated 25.11.2006 (Annexure P6) and the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure P7). The case of the complainant, as per the complaint, reads as under:- "1. That the complainant is an old aged person and law abiding and peace loving person, who belongs to chamar community (Harizen), which has been recognized as scheduled caste by the Constitution of India. 2.That all the above accused belongs to upper caste and do not belong to scheduled caste. 3.That all the above accused persons had formed an unlawful gage and always try to humiliate the complainant by using derogatory remarks against the complainant's caste. 4. That election to the panchayat of Gram Panchayat Ladhuwas Ahir was held on 12 March, 2000. 5. That complainant and his family members did not cast their votes in favour of Smt. Krishna Devi w/o Shri Om Prkash, who was one of the candidate for the post of Sarpanch and due to this reason above, accused are having enmity with the complainant and his family members. 6.That it is pertinent to mention here that husband of Smt. Krishna Devi is serving in Haryana Police and presently posted as Dy.S.P., Loharu and Dy.S.P. Om Parkash is having good relations with the policeman serving in P.S.Rampura and due to his influence over police of P.S. Rampura use to harass and humiliate the complainant and his family members. Criminal Misc. No. M-27303 of 2008 3 7. That above accused use to flow there dirty water before the house of complainant and a ditch was dug in front of house of complainant due to which whole of dirty water kept standing in front of house of complainant. 8. That complainant made an application in this regard to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, who investigated the caste and directed the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ladhuwas Ahir, vide their letter No. 1075 dated 12.7.2001, that complainant is having genuine problem and all the accused be restrained not to deliver their dirty water in front of house of complainant and in case above accused do not agree then their complaint be made to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Rewari, but no action was taken by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat of Ladhuwas Ahir. 9. That on 28.7.2002 at about 6 P.M. complainant was taking rest in his house, then accused Birender s/o Shri Ram Surender s/o Shri Ram, Sanjay s/o Umed, Parveen s/o Om Parkash, Vidya Devi w/o Umed, Sunita w/o Surender and Ram Ratti w/o Sh. Birender came in the house of applicant/complainant and all the accused having lathi and jallies in their hands and started abusing that Kameen, Dhed firstly you and family members have not casted yours votes in favour of Smt. Krishna Devi Sarpanch and secondly you are making complaint to the higher authorities against Smt. Krishna Devi, Sarpanch and against us. We will not spare you today and will finish a Kameen family from village Ladhuwas Ahir and accused Surender, who was Criminal Misc. No. M-27303 of 2008 4 having jaley in his hand, hit the same in the head of the complainant and accused Birender hit the Jaley on left arm of complainant. Accused Parveen give a lathi blow on the right hand of complainant and accused Sanjay gave a lathi blow in the feet of complainant and accused Vidya Devi, Sunita and Ram Ratti throw stones and bricks due to which complainant sustained grievous injuries over his body. Complainant was made to fall on the ground and seeing this situation complainant cried for help, then Gayasi Ram, Pardeep Kumar and Bimla Devi came on the spot and rescued the complainant from the clutches of accused persons. 10. That all the accused persons were shouting in one voice that Dhed, Chamar, you have been saved today by the witnesses in future if you makes any complaint against us or Smt. Krishna Devi Sarpanch then we will not spare you and got implicated you and your family members in a false case as our Dy.S.P. Om Parkash is having good relations with the police of Distt. Rewari. 11. That complainant was admitted to Civil Hospital, Rewari, where Pardeep and Lal Chand sons of complainant were also with the complainant in Civil Hospital Rewari and at about 10 P.M., the accused persons also threaten the family members of complainant. 12. That Om Parkash Dy.S.P. in connivance with Local Police saved his sons Vipin and Parveen and their names were not recorded in the FIR. Criminal Misc. No. M-27303 of 2008 5 13. That FIR No. 68 dated 29.7.2002 was registered against some of the accused persons u/s 323/325/506/34 IPC at P.S. Rampura and a false case was registered against the complainant's family members and offence u/s 3 of SC/ST Act was not added by the Local Police. 14. That complainant made various complaints to the Higher dignitaries to investigate this case properly, but the case was not investigated properly and National Human Right Commission, vide their letter No. 1108/7/2002-2003 dated 29.8.2003 have informed the complainant that his case is pending in the Hon'ble Court, hence complainant is at liberty to agitate the remaining grievances if any before the court of law. 15. That all the accused persons are wandering like tigers and openly threatens the complainant that Dhed, Chamar, Kameen nobody can do any harm to us, we have got a false cross case registered against you and one day you will have to feel apology before us and then the case will be compromised. 16, That Local Police has not investigated the case properly and complainant has lost faith in the Civil machinery and wants justice from this Hon'ble Court.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that qua the incident FIR No. 68 dated 29.7.2002 was registered. Now, however, with an intention to involve more persons, the complaint in question has been filed. No offence under Section 3 of the Act was made out. The occurrence had taken place in the house of the complainant. The alleged eye witness had reached the spot after the occurrence. The alleged eye witness, who has Criminal Misc. No. M-27303 of 2008 6 been cited in the list of witnesses, is none other the son of the complainant. Gayasi Ram and Bimla Devi, who had allegedly witnessed the occurrence, have not been cited as witnesses in the list of witnesses. Respondent No.2- Dhani Ram was habitual of making false complaints. The complaint had been filed after more than a year after the alleged occurrence just to pressurize the petitioners in the cross case. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the occurrence had taken place in the presence of Gayasi Ram, Dhani Ram and Pardeep Kumar and, hence, was within a public view as envisaged under the Act. Respondent No.2 had made complaint for proper registration of the FIR but the same had not been done as the police was helping the petitioners. Hence, the complaint was filed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. The incident in question had occurred on 28.7.2002. FIR No.68 dated 29.7.2002 was registered at Police Station Rampura under Sections 323/ 325/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners party. The cross version was registered on the basis of statement made by Surinder Singh from the petitioners party. Both the said matters are pending before the trial Court. Respondent No.2 has filed this complaint(Annexure P1) in September, 2003 against the petitioners and Surinder Singh. A perusal of the complaint reveals that the occurrence had taken place in the house of the complainant.Moreover, it appears from the perusal of para 9 of the complaint that Gayasi Ram, Pardeep Kumar and Bimla Devi had reached the spot after the complainant has been given injury by the accused. Pardeep Kumar is none other than the son of the complainant. Gayasi Ram Criminal Misc. No. M-27303 of 2008 7 and Bimla Devi had not been named in the list of witnesses attached with the complaint. Phula Devi and Krishna Devi are not mentioned in the complaint as eye witnesses but they have been cited as witnesses in the list of witnesses and have been examined by the complainant while leading preliminary evidence. In para 7(i) of the petition, it has been averred that respondent No.2 was habitual of filing of complaints against different persons. Respondent No.2 had filed almost 15 complaint against different persons and none of them were found to be true. A calandra under Section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also prepared against respondent No.2 in one case. In reply to the said paragraph, the State has stated as under:- ``(i).That in reply to the contents of Para No.(i) of the petition, it is submitted that the contents of the paragraph with regards to the calandra under Section 182 Cr.P.C. having been filed against the respondent No.2 are not disputed. A calandra was filed against the respondent No.2 on 1.9.2004 by SI/Station House Officer, Police Station Rampura, on account of a complaint moved by him having been found false and the matter is still pending before the learned Trial Court.” The complaint in question has been filed after more than one year of the alleged occurrence. In the State case, trial against both the parties i.e. petitioners as well as complainant party are pending. It appears that the complaint has been filed after a long delay with an ulterior motive. Keeping in view the totality of the factual matrix of this case, it would be just and expedient to quash the complaint as well as further proceedings in consequence thereto as the continuation of the same would be nothing but Criminal Misc. No. M-27303 of 2008 8 an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Criminal Complaint No.227 of 2003 (Annexure P1) registered under Section 3(10) of the Act and all consequential proceedings arising thereto qua the petitioners are quashed. (Sabina) Judge July 26, 2010 arya