IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-22626 of 2008 Date of decision: 25th February, 2009 Ranjit Singh and another … Petitioners Versus Shakuntla Devi and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) On September 3, 2008, a Coordinate Bench had passed the following order: “This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of criminal complaint dated 5.7.2007 (Annexure P-1) titled ‘Shakuntla Devi vs. Ranjit Singh Chauhan & others’ and order of summoning dated 31.1.2008 (Annexure P-2), whereby the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial for committing offence under Sections 451, 506 IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is three fold viz. that the petitioners themselves are Ramdasias and therefore, are scheduled caste. In this view of the matter, no offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out; secondly that the incident has not occurred in a public place, therefore also, the Criminal Misc. No. M-22626 of 2008 offence is not made as the incident was within the house; thirdly that, the complaint does not disclose anywhere that the petitioners had knowledge about the caste of the complainant. Notice of motion for 1.12.2008. Further proceedings shall remain stayed. Sd/- September 03, 2008 (AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE” Mr.Rajnish Kumar Jindal has caused appearance for the complainant/ respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has made a statement that whether petitioners are Ramdasias falling under Scheduled Castes or not, is a question of fact, which is to be determined by the trial Court. It has been further stated that besides the offences falling under provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, petitioners have also been summoned for offences under Section 451 and 506 IPC. In view of this, let the trial Court, at the first instance, examine whether petitioners are Ramdasias falling under Scheduled Castes or not. In case it is found that petitioners are Ramdasias falling under Scheduled Castes and they are not to be proceeded against under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, then the trial Court shall proceed with the matter for offences under Section 451 and 506 IPC. However, petitioner will be permitted to furnish regular bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. With these observations, present petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 25, 2009 rps 2