Crl. Misc. No. M-13037 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-13037 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 2.7.2010 Ajit Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Premjit Kalia, Advocate, for the petitioners. GURDEV SINGH, J. Petitioners-Ajit Singh and others, who have been summoned as accused to stand their trial for the offences under Sections 452, 504, 506/148 /149 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), vide order dated 30.10.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, in the complaint filed against them by Swaran Singh- respondent No.2/complainant, have come up with the present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing of that order and the complaint. They have pleaded therein that Ajit Singh-petitioner No.1 is the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of the village since the year 2006-2007 and, as such, is the custodian of the land owned by the Gram Panchayat. That land also includes the land comprised of Khasra Nos. 41, 87 and 88, which is a pond and is being used for common purposes of the village. The Crl. Misc. No. M-13037 of 2010 2 same is recorded as such in the jamabandi. In the month of December, 2006, respondent No.2 started filling up some portion of the pond and also started raising construction thereon. When petitioner No.1 came to know about that fact, he requested him not to encroach upon the land of the Gram Panchayat, but he continued with his illegal act. In order to prevent the action of the Gram Panchayat, he filed the above said complaint, which is false and is nothing but to take vengeance against the petitioners and their family members. The complaint and the summoning order are the abuse of process of law. They are innocent and have not committed any such offence. A concocted story has been put forward by the complainant. They never uttered any such derogatory remarks against respondent No.2 and there is no question of their committing any such offence under the above said Act. Moreover, from the contents of the complainant, it cannot be said that any such offence under the Act is made out as the alleged act was never committed in the public view. Even the offences under the IPC are not made out from the contents of the complaint. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 being Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat had initiated action against respondent No.2/complainant, who had started encroaching upon the village pond vested in the Gram Panchayat and a resolution was passed, which was sent to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer (BD&PO) for taking action and respondent No.2 maliciously filed the complaint as a counter-blast in which all the family members of petitioner No.1 have been involved. It has no where been contended in the complaint that the alleged offence of using derogatory remarks against the caste of the Crl. Misc. No. M-13037 of 2010 3 complainant were uttered in the public view. Therefore, no such offence under Section 3 (X) of the Act has been committed by the petitioners. The complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of court and, as such, the same as well as the summoning order are liable to be quashed. Copy of the complaint has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P/2. According to the complainant, this occurrence took place on 28.12.2006 at 11.50 AM. It is narrated in the complaint that petitioner No.1 armed with a dang, petitioner No.2 armed with a soti, petitioner No.3 armed with a kirpan, petitioner No.5 armed with a takuwa, petitioner No. 6 armed with a gandasi, alongwith petitioner No.4, conspired together and started calling the complainant by his name. They forcibly, illegally and criminally trespassed into his house and after catching hold of him by his hair brought him in the street by dragging and thereafter the petitioners used derogatory language against his caste and they also started dismantling the khurlis which were built in his house, with their respective weapons and when his wife Nirmal Kaur came ahead to save him, she was caught hold of by the petitioners by her hair and she was also abused in the name of their caste. All the petitioners humiliated them by using words against their caste. In support of the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners, attention of this Court has been drawn towards the documents Annexures P/1, P/4 and P/5. Annexure P/1 is the jamabandi in which the land bearing Khasra No. 41, 87 and 88 has been described as gairmumkin chappar (village pond) and the ownership thereof is recorded to be that of the Gram Panchayat. Annexure P/4 is the resolution which was passed by the Gram Panchayat of the village to the effect that respondent No.2/complainant illegally raised construction over the portion of this pond Crl. Misc. No. M-13037 of 2010 4 and did not stop from raising the construction inspite of the fact that he was prevented from doing so. It was resolved by that resolution that BD&PO be approached in writing for taking legal action against that respondent. Annexure P/5 is the letter written by BD&PO to the officer in-charge of the Police Station for removing the unauthorized construction made by respondent No.2 on the village pond. It is pertinent to note that according to the complainant, the occurrence had taken place on 28.12.2006 whereas the said resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat on 9.1.2007 and the letter by the BD&PO was written on 12.1.2007. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the complaint is a counter-blast to the proceedings taken by the Gram Panchayat against respondent No.2 regarding the alleged illegal encroachment. No doubt, the complaint was filed on 11.1.2007, but it is mentioned therein that the matter was reported to the police on the date of occurrence itself. A perusal of the impugned summoning order, Annexure P/3 shows that respondent No.2 during the preliminary evidence proved the application given by him to the officer in-charge of the Police Station as CW1/A, alongwith the photographs marks A and B. In all these circumstances, it has become disputed questions of fact as to whether the complaint is a counter- blast to the proceedings taken by the Panchayat against respondent No.2 or whether those proceedings were initiated by the Gram Panchayat in order to wriggle out of the criminal liability already incurred by the petitioners. In view of that, it cannot be concluded, at this stage, that the complaint was maliciously filed by respondent No.2 in order to wreck vengeance. Specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioners in the complaint and merely on the ground that the petitioners are members of one family, it Crl. Misc. No. M-13037 of 2010 5 cannot be held that the net has been thrown wider in order to falsely involve all of them in this case. The offence under Section 3 (X) of the Act is, prima facie, made out from the contents of the complaint, as according to respondent No. 2, derogatory words regarding his caste were used by the petitioners after he was dragged out into the street and that act of the petitioners was committed in the public view. In addition to that it has also been alleged in the complaint that the petitioners tried to dispossess respondent No.2 from the premises in his possession and that respondent No.2 belongs to scheduled caste, whereas, the petitioners are not members of the Scheduled Caste. From those averments the offence under Section 3 (v) of the Act is also made out. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be concluded that the complaint so filed by respondent No. 2 is the abuse of the process of the court. No ground is made out for quashing the complaint and the summoning order. The petition is dismissed accordingly. July 2, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE