Crl. Misc. No. No. 71214-M of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.71214-M of 2006 Decided on : 07-07-2009 M.L.Ohri and others ....Petitioners VERSUS Kanti Devi ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. D.P.S.Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the respondent. MAHESH GROVER, J This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of complaint (Annexure P-1), summoning order dated 12.9.2006 (Annexure P-3) (passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide which the revision petition preferred by the respondent against the order of the Trial Court dismissing her complaint was accepted) and consequent order dated 16.9.2006 (Annexure P-4) (passed by JMIC Jalandhar pursuant to order dated 12.9.2006). Petitioner no.1 is a retired Principal of a college namely, Mehar Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar City whereas petitioner no.2 aged 64 years and petitioner no.3 are retired employees from the same college. All of them are subjected to the allegations in a complaint which has been preferred by the complainant-respondent under the provisions of Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Crl. Misc. No. No. 71214-M of 2006 2 The learned Trial Court before whom the complaint was filed concluded that no offence under the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act has been shown to have been committed by the petitioners herein for the simple reason that the complainant has not produced certificate showing that she was belonging to Scheduled Caste. A revision petition was preferred by the complainant- respondent against the said order, which was accepted and the Trial Court was directed to procure the presence of the petitioners as accused and to proceed against them in accordance with law. This has resulted in the filing of the present petition in which it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint does not disclose the commission of an offence. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no averment in the complaint that the complainant-respondent belong to Scheduled Castes and this fact was known to the petitioners. Therefore, it is his contention that even if the words uttered to her by them and the allegations are taken to be correct, the petitioners cannot be proceeded against for commission of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act for the simple reason that ingredients of the said Section are not satisfied. Therefore, the complaint and all consequent proceedings and summoning order deserve to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the respondent had been able to show the certificate that she belongs to Scheduled Caste before the Revisional Authority and therefore, there is no occasion for the proceedings to be quashed. He has contended that the powers under Section 482 should be exercised in rare cases and not ordinarily in cases which enhance social justice. Crl. Misc. No. No. 71214-M of 2006 3 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the complaint and the summoning order dated 12.9.2006. The complaint against the petitioners has been initiated pursuant to the provision of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act which are reproduced herein for ready reference:- “Section 3(1):- Whosoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, - (i)to (ix) - - - - -- - - (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; (xi) to (xv) - - - - - - 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” A perusal of the aforesaid provision of law makes it abundantly clear that intention and knowledge to commit the aforesaid offence are essential ingredients of the offence. It is also imperative that a person who allegedly commits such a offence is attributed the knowledge of the person so abused with the offensive words as belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. When a complaint is initiated against a person, these two ingredients automatically form essential bed-rock of the allegations and if the complaint is lacking in these, prima facie the Court cannot record a conclusion that a case has been made out sufficiently so as to warrant summoning of an accused under the aforesaid provisions of law. The Court Crl. Misc. No. No. 71214-M of 2006 4 is not expected to act mechanically and summon an accused and it necessarily has to apply its mind to the averments made in the complaint and reconcile them with the provisions of law and if the averments made in the complaint satisfy the essentials of law then necessarily summon the accused and not otherwise. Offence so alleged against a person has to be manifest from the allegations in the complaint. In the instant case, if the entire complaint is perused there is not even a single word mentioned by the complainant that she belongs to Scheduled Caste and that the petitioners intentionally and knowing her to be a member of the Scheduled Caste had uttered the words attributed to them so as to insult her. If the impugned order (Annexure P-3) is to be perused then in para no.7 the Revisional Court has observed as follows:- “Para 7 :- Without commenting further with regard to the impugned order this revisioner Court is of the opinion that dismissing the complaint by the lower Court simply stating that complainant has not adduced her caste certificate is not legal and valid one while sufficient evidence is on the file that she belong to Scheduled Caste category (Adharmi) that is why she has approached to Bhartiya Balmiki Adharam Samaj (Regd.) Working of the complainant as Sweeper itself indicates that she belongs to the SC community, copy of caste certificate attached in revision. In the society no example exists that any of the person belonging to the general category would work as Sweeper.” The aforesaid reasoning is absurd to say the least and the Crl. Misc. No. No. 71214-M of 2006 5 reasoning blatantly perverse and cannot be sustained under any circumstances. Keeping in view the totality of the facts that the complaint itself does not disclose the commission of any offence and lacks in material particulars and also the fact that the order of the Revisional Court is based on unsustainable reasoning, I am of the considered opinion that the complaint (Annexure P-1), consequent summoning order dated 12.9.2006 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 16.9.2006 (Annexure P-4) arising therefrom deserve to be quashed. Ordered accordingly. Petition stands allowed. July 07, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge