Criminal Misc. No. M-11035 of 2011 And 1 Criminal Misc. No. M-12820 of 2011 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. 1. Criminal Misc. No. M-11035 of 2011 Sucha Singh and Others …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent AND 2. Criminal Misc. No. M-12820 of 2011 Sucha Singh and Others …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent Date of Decision: 4.5.2011 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) By this common order, both the petitions viz. Criminal Misc. No. M-11035 of 2011 titled as “Sucha Singh and Others v. State of Punjab” and No. M-12820 of 2011 titled as “Sucha Singh and Others v. State of Punjab”, shall be decided together. In both the petitions, a common grievance has been made that due to pendency of civil dispute between the parties, the impugned FIRs Criminal Misc. No. M-11035 of 2011 And 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-12820 of 2011 have been lodged against the petitioners for trespass and theft. It is stated that in order to aggravate the offence, a supplementary statement was recorded and the offence under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was added. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that addition of the offence under the provisions of the Act is a blatant abuse and misuse of powers vested in the police. At the first instance, it may look that recording of a supplementary statement and addition of the offence under the provisions of Act was a devise to enhance the effect of criminal litigation foisted upon the petitioners but the real question which this Court has to ponder is as to whether recording of a supplementary statement was genuine or motivated. This essentially will require appreciation of evidence. As the law exists on today such an exercise under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is forbidden. Therefore, the trial Court, after the evidence is adduced by the parties, will adjudicate upon the same. However, taking the circumstances which have been divulged by learned counsel for the petitioners personal appearance of the petitioners is exempted before the trial Court subject to filing an undertaking that they shall cause appearance as and when required and the evidence recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel shall be binding upon them. Trial Court may also specify any other condition in the undertaking to be furnished by the petitioners. The petitioners are also granted liberty to raise all arguments before the trial Court at an appropriate stage including at the time of framing of charge. Criminal Misc. No. M-11035 of 2011 And 3 Criminal Misc. No. M-12820 of 2011 With the observations made above, both the petitions are disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 4, 2011 “DK”