Criminal Misc. No. M-2440 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-2440 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.7.2008 Dr. Gurwinderjit Singh Mand ..... Petitioner vs. Amarjit Kaur ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. D. S. Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S. L. Chander Shekhar, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. At the time of motion hearing, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this court passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was incharge of Ayurvedic Dispensary, Chuslewal where Amarjit Kaur was working as trained Dai (mid wife). She was in habit of coming late in the dispensary as is evident from the copy of attendance register from January, 2005 to December, 2005. (Annexure P-1). When petitioner was threatened by her by bringing press reporters a report was made by the petitioner to District District Ayurvedic Officer for taking appropriate action against the complainant. A wrong news item was also got published in the newspaper against the petitioner for which he even got a legal notice sent to Press Reporters as well as Amarjit Kaur on October 10, 2005. Immediately after the petitioner got the legal notice issued to the Press Reporters of the news paper, the complaint in question was filed by the respondent on October 18, 2005 with the allegations that on September 8, 2005, petitioner had used certain unparliamentary language. Thereafter to bury the differences with the intervention of District Ayurvedic/Unani Officer, Amritsar in his office, both the parties reached at a compromise with the understanding that they will not file any complaint against each other and respondent will withdraw the complaint already filed against the petitioner as the differences between the parties were as a result of certain misconception. Inspite of the compromise, respondent did not withdraw the complaint and the petitioner has been summoned therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that entire allegations against the petitioner are fabricated and concocted and infact a result of his taking action against the respondent Criminal Misc. No. M-2440 of 2008 2 for her spoiling the discipline in the office. He being her senior officer was bound to maintain discipline in the office.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of the order passed by this court, the petitioner has already appeared before the court below and furnished his bail bonds. He further submitted that the filing of the complaint by the respondent against the petitioner is nothing else but an abuse of process of law especially the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act”). The primarily reason thereof is that the petitioner being the incharge of the office did not tolerate regular indiscipline created by the respondent by coming late on duty for which reports were sent to the higher authorities. He further submitted that on a plain reading of the complaint, prima facie, no case under the Act is made out as there is no averment that the petitioner was known about the caste of the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that from a bare perusal of the facts stated in the complaint under the Act, a case is made out against the petitioner and he should not be enlarged on bail. He further submitted that the petitioner did not only call the respondent in the name of caste but also manhandled her. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the complaint seems to be a counter blast to the reports sent by the petitioner to the higher authorities about the respondent/ complainant coming late on duty. Though the complaint was filed on 18.10.2005 but history was sought to be traced from 18.9.2003. The petitioner did not exceed his authority by sending regular reports of absence of the complainant as he was bound to maintain discipline in the office. From the facts on record I find that there are sufficient reasons for enlarging the petitioner on bail, pending trial. Ordered accordingly. It is made clear that nothing said above shall be taken as expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy. The case before the court below shall be heard and decided on its own merits. 14.7.2008 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge