CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1699 OF 2002 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 12, 2008 Gian Singh and others .....Petitioners VERSUS Sampuran Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr. K. S. Maangat, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) Petitioners, eight in number, have filed this revision petition, impugning the order framing charge against them under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act”). Sampuran Singh and Kaka Singh are two complainants, who have lodged this complaint against the petitioners. The case set up by them is that they belonged to Ramdasia caste, which is a scheduled caste. On CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1699 OF 2002 :{ 2 }: 6.4.2001, the complainants alongwith other members of the community went to pay obeisance in Gurudwara Sahib, when the petitioners armed with lathies and dandas allegedly prevented them from doing so and locked the Gurudwara. Allegation further is that the petitioners said that Gurudwara was not meant for “Churas and Chamars” and told the complainants to make their own Gurudwara. It is further alleged that on 11.4.2001, the complainant had again gone to the Gurudwara Sahib for taking holly book of Sri Guru Granth Sahib for starting Akhand Path in their own Gurudwara Sahib, which they had constructed but the petitioners again locked the Gurudwara Sahib and prevented the complainant from entering there. It is on this basis urged that the petitioners had intentionally insulted the complainants and other members of the community. On the basis of this complaint and the evidence of the complainants as recorded, the Court has framed a charge against the petitioners under Section 3(x) of the Act. Notice in the revision was issued and further proceedings before the Trial Court were stayed. Today, no one appears on behalf of the complainants. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that there is no specific attribution to any of the petitioners for having uttered the words as alleged. The allegation, as such, would remain vague. The Court, while framing the charge, was conscious of this fact and has itself observed that the allegation levelled against the accused persons is more in nature a general allegation and specific attribution is not there. Still, the Court has gone to frame the charge CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1699 OF 2002 :{ 3 }: under Section 3(x) of the Act. Counsel further contends that even if everything is taken at the face value, it is seen that the words as allegedly used were not in “public view”. Counsel refers to Section 3 (x) of the Act to point out that one of the essential ingredients of the offence is that the words are used with intention to insult or intimidate in any place within the “public view”. Counsel would refer to the contents of the complaint to urge that as per the allegations in the complaint, the petitioners had locked the Gurudwara and were as such, inside the Gurudwara while the complainants were standing outside. The words as alleged were used by the petitioners while they were inside the Gurudwara. Though, it is mentioned in the complaint that some other persons were present with the complainants but none is named. Since all the petitioners have been arrayed as accused, they can not be taken as a members of public to say that the use of these words was in “public view”. The counsel for the petitioners submits that no other person has been cited as a witness, who could come and depose that the words were used in his presence. Two persons are the complainants and they have alone given evidence to say that these words were used. Though they seek support from the evidence of Ajaib Singh (PW3) but he had also remained quite vague in giving his evidence and has not made any specific attribution to any of the petitioners. So is the state of evidence given by the complainants. It is to be seen if the offence under Section 3(x) is made out from the allegations as made from the complaint to frame charge. If the words were used in public view, it was required to be averred in CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1699 OF 2002 :{ 4 }: the complaint being an important ingredient of the offence. This is not so stated in the complaint that words were used by the petitioners in public view. It would be debatable if the complainants would be legally in a position to give evidence on this aspect, when it is not so stated in the complaint. Once it has not been pleaded in the complaint that the words were uttered in public view, any evidence in this regard even if given would be seen as an improvement and so viewed with suspicion. If indeed, it had been a fact, the complainants were bound to make averment in this regard in the complaint and then would have been entitled to lead evidence on that aspect. The words used obviously are not in public view and have not been so pleaded in the complaint. Learned counsel has sought support from the cases of Jasrath Singh and another Vs. State of M.P., 2006 (1) RCR (Criminal) 272, State of Rajasthan Vs. Dipti Ram, 2001 (4) RCR (Criminal) 765 and Amrit Lal Mardia & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kumar, 2007 (5) RCR (Criminal) 674. It is held in these cases that the offending words used to constitute an offence should necessarily be with an intention to insult or intimidates the member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and should be at any place within public view. In Amrit Lal Mardia's case (supra), it is held that alleged insult or humiliation should be caused in a place within the public view. As per the ratio of law in these cases, if complainants are not insulted, intimidated or humiliated at a place within the public view, no offence would made out. The allegations made in the complaint can be looked from CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1699 OF 2002 :{ 5 }: another angle also. The complainants had gone to pay obeisance at the Gurudwara Sahib. The petitioners had allegedly not allowed them to enter the Gurudwara. They had locked the Gurudwara by entering inside it. The words that this Gurudwara is not meant for Chura Chamars in this background, obviously were not used for the complainants or at any rate could not be said to have been used with an intention to intimidate or insult the complainants. A general utterance, not attracted towards the complainants, appears to have been made, even if allegations in the complaint are taken at best pedestal. The petitioners, though described as members of general category, but they are also from backward class. This complaint, thus, may be found lacking to show intentional intimidation or insult of the complainants. This, to an extent, can also be noticed from the subsequent conduct of the complainants. If actually they had been insulted or intimidated, they could not be expected to go back to the Gurudwara on 11.4.2001 to ask for holy book of Sri Guru Granth Sahib for Akand Path for their own Gurudwara. Obviously, the incident of 6.4.2001 was not meant either to intentionally insult the complainants or to intimidate them. The ingredients of the offence under Section 3 (x) of the Act, are, thus, not made out for framing a charge under the said Section. The order framing the charge, thus, can not be sustained. The revision petition is allowed. Order framing the charge is set-aside with all necessary consequences. November 12, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE