IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL COURT’S ORDER WHETHER THE CASE IS OR IS NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING [Chapter VIII, Rule 32 (2) (b)] Description of case Criminal Misc. Application No. 164 of 2010 Decided on: 11.05.2010 A.F.R. (Approved for Reporting) Not approved for Reporting Date: 11.05.2010 (Initial of Judge) Note: Bench Reader will attach this at the top of the first page on the judgment when it is put up before the Judge for signature. IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 164 of 2010 1. Rajbir S/o Shri Kadam Singh 2. Nitin Pal, S/o Rajbir Both R/o Village Brahmpuri, Ravali Mahdood, P.S. Ranipur District Haridwar. ……………….. Applicants Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home. 2. Jagjeevan Ram, S/o Samay Singh R/o Mohalla Kadach, …………Opposite parties Shri K.S. Verma, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State/respondent No. 1. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973(for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No. 805 of 2009, State vs. Nitin Pal & another relating to offences punishable under section 323, 477 and 506, I.P.C., and one punishable under section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is not attracted to the present case as the petitioners themselves are members of ‘Dhangar Community’ (a class scheduled in the Presidential Constitution Order, 1950). With the supplementary affidavit copy of the family register has been filed showing petitioners Nitin Pal and Rajbir as members of Dhangar Community. 4. In Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of A.P. (2009) 1 SCC (criminal) 446, the Apex Court has observed in para 6 of the judgment as under;- “In the instant case, the allegation of Respondent 3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.05.2004, 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 appellant- accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (Respondent 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 appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate Respondent 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” 5. Perusal of the first information report and the statement of the complainant under section 161 of Cr.P.C., (copy of which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit) shows that the complainant has nowhere alleged that the petitioners (accused) are not members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. As such, this Court is of the view that as against the petitioners, since the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are not made out, as such the criminal trial with regard to said offences is liable to be quashed. 6. Therefore this petition is moved under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is disposed of with the direction that the trial of the petitioners namely Rajbir and Nitin Pal is quashed to the extent it relates to the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, trial may proceed in respect of other offences relating to I.P.C. It is further observed that if the petitioners surrender before the court concerned and moved bail application, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt: 11.05.2010 parul