CRM No. M-23569 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-23569 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.09.2009 Dilbagh Singh & another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Pardeep Rajput, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition for quashing of complaint and subsequent proceedings initiated against the petitioner by virtue of the complaint (Annexure P-1). Pursuant to the same, the petitioners were summoned to face trial under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, vide order, Annexure P-2. The complainant alleged in the FIR that on 26th September, 2005, ASI Buta Singh and Head Constable Dilbagh Singh hurled abuses at him using offensive language. They also told him that they would not spare him. The complainant has lodged the instant complaint under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, being a scheduled caste. The accused SI Buta Singh and Head Constable Dilbagh Singh (petitioners herein) were summoned to face trial under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that from a CRM No. M-23569 of 2009 2 perusal of the complaint, no offence is made out. This apart, it had not been stated in the complaint that the accused knew that the complainant was belonging to scheduled caste. According to the counsel, basic ingredients of the offence are not made out and thus the complaint as well as summoning order are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of A.P. & Others, 2008 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 171 in support of his contention. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. In the complaint lodged by respondent No.2- complainant, he gave detailed description of the events leading to the alleged offence. The exact words used by the accused against the complainant have been mentioned in the complaint. In view of the allegations levelled in para 12 thereof, it cannot be said at this stage that offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act is not made out. The judgment in Gorige Pentaiah's case (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the complainant in the said case had made a very general allegation stating that “Gorige Pentaiah s/o Bakkaia abused us with the name of our caste no action is taken against him. I am requesting you to take action against the said people”. On the other hand, in the instant case, the exact words/abuses used by the petitioners have been described in para 12 of the complaint. This apart, the petitioner has rushed to this court merely on issuance of process by the trial court. There is no ground made out to interfere in CRM No. M-23569 of 2009 3 inherent jurisdiction of this court to quash the complaint and the summoning order. Even prayer of the petitioner for pre-arrest bail has been dismissed upto the apex court. The order passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4207 of 2009 has been produced by learned counsel during the course of hearing. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for interference in inherent jurisdiction for quashing of the complaint in question and the subsequent proceedings. The petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE September 09, 2009 'rajpal'