CRM-M 15843 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on 20.10.2009. Tajinder Kaur and others -- Petitioners vs. State of Punjab and another --Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Ashok Giri,Advocate,for the petitioners Mr.R.S, Rawat, A.A.G.Punjab. Mr.Jai Deep Verma,Advocate,for the complainant/respondent No.2. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of anticipatory bail in complaint case No.25 dated 25.4.2005, filed under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, titled as “Surinder Pal Singh Vs. Tajinder Kaur and others” pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur in which the petitioners have been summoned vide order dated 28.11.2006 (Annexure P8). Before coming to this Court, the petitioners had applied for CRM-M 15843 of 2009 (O&M) 2 anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide his order dated 28.3.2009. The petitioners had also filed CRM-M 27782 of 2008 for quashing of the complaint and summoning order which has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.5.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the allegations contained in the complaint cannot be believed because no specific role has been attributed to the petitioners. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is a prior litigation between the parties, as a result of which the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. On the contrary, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that after the summoning order was issued on 28.11.2006, summons were sent to the petitioners to appear before the trial Court which were refused by them and thereafter, they were declared proclaimed offenders vide order of the Court dated 13.6.2009. It is further submitted that no fault could have been found by the petitioners with the impugned summoning order which has already been upheld by this Court vide order dated 12.5.2009 passed in CRM-M 27782 of 2008. It is also submitted that since a petition for quashing of the summoning order has already been dismissed by this Court, therefore, the allegations contained in the complaint cannot be challenged by the petitioners in this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without CRM-M 15843 of 2009 (O&M) 3 making any observations on the merit of this case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and therefore, the bail petition is hereby dismissed. 20.10.2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge