IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2951 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 01, 2011 Dalbir Singh & another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Sandeep S. Majithia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against order of charge dated 27.8.2010 and chargesheet of the same date whereby the petitioners have been charged to face trial for commission of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. Chargesheet reads as under:- Crl. Revision No.2951 of 2010 [2] “That on 9.10.2004 at about 3 PM in the area of Goindwal Sahib, you not being a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled Tribe intentionally intimidates with the intent to humiliate a member i.e. complainant of a scheduled caste on public place within public view and thereby you committed an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and within the cognizance of court of Sessions. And I hereby direct that you be tried by this court on the commission of said offence.” 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, at the first instance, is that the incident did not take place at public place and therefore, the charge could not have been framed. On the second count, it has been contended that the complaint does not allege that the respondent-complainant knew that petitioners did not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and therefore, intentionally abused the complainant in the name of caste. 4. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. 5. Section 3(1)(x) of the Act reads as under:- “3. Punishment for offences of atrocities.-(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (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; xx xx xx xx xx xx xx shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.” 6. To deal with the first argument of the learned Crl. Revision No.2951 of 2010 [3] counsel that incident did not take place at public place, a bare perusal of the complaint makes it evident that the offending words were spoken at around 3.00 PM after the complainant had been pulled out of the home on the road. Provisions of Section 3(1)(x) make it categoric that in case the act is committed in “public view”, the offence would be complete. Incident on the “Road” surely would indicate that it was in “public view” that incident took place, and therefore, the first contention of the learned counsel has to be rejected. 7. So far as the second contention is concerned, Para 2 of the complaint (Annexure P-1) makes it evident that it has been stated by the complainant that he belongs to Mazbi Sikh and is a member of Scheduled Caste, and all the accused are Jat Sikh. In such circumstances, while dealing with the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., no ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out. 8. I have also taken into account the fact that other than the allegations of abuse in the name of Caste, there are serious allegations of abusing the wife of the complainant and also removing the Dupatta of the wife and pulling her hair. Like-wise, Turban of the complainant was removed and thrown at the time of speaking offending and derogatory words. This aspect of the matter becomes evident from perusal of Para 3 of the complaint. Crl. Revision No.2951 of 2010 [4] 9. Although charge for commission of offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act has not been framed, however, charge can be amended at a subsequent stage, and therefore also, the complaint and the chargesheet cannot be quashed, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The petition is dismissed. 11. Anything said in this order would not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case. It is made clear that the petitioners would be at liberty to plead all the grounds available with them before the Trial Court, including the grounds taken in this petition. 12. Considering the age of the petitioners, being 67 and 65 years, their personal appearance shall remain exempt on the conditions that: (i) they shall be represented by a counsel before the Trial Court; (ii) they shall not dispute their identity as accused; (iii) they shall have no objection if the evidence is recorded in their absence; (iv) they shall come present before the Trial Court as and when required; and (v) they shall comply with any other condition (s) that may be imposed by the Trial Court. (AJAI LAMBA) August 01, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?