Crl. Misc. No. M-12311 of 2009 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-12311 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 2,2011 Krishana Devi ............................................................... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .................................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Vishal Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. R.S.Chahal, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... RITU BAHRI, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for setting aside the orders dated 10.7.2006 and 14.1.2009 passed by Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar, and Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby the accused has been summoned to face trial under Section 354 and 506 IPC. The petitioner prays for summoning respondent No.2 under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Act and also under Section 376/511 IPC. Crl. Misc. No. M-12311 of 2009 (O&M) [ 2 ] Brief facts of the case are that on 15.12.2002 husband of the complainant has gone out for duty. On 16.12.2005 at 5:00 P.M. she went to G.L.F. Hisar to find out the whereabouts of her husband. Near Chopalia Block, she met the accused who took her in a Chaubara and molested her. She raised hue and cry and on hearing her cries Vijay Pal and Satpal Security Guards reached there and witnessed the alleged occurrence. In support of the allegations, the complainant appeared into the witness box as PW1 and got examined Vijay Pal as PW2 and Satpal as PW3. After going through the details of the complaint and as per the version of the eye- witnesses, Vijay Pal and Satpal, the trial Court summoned the accused to face trial under Sections 354 and 506 IPC. This order has been affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, on revision vide order dated 14.1.2009. It has been observed in the revisional order that no evidence under the Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Act has been made out as there is no averment in the complaint that the respondent had the knowledge that petitioner-complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste. The most essential element of knowledge of Caste of the complainant is missing in the complaint. The order of the trial Court has been affirmed. Mr.Vishal Hooda, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner was from a village background and the contents of her complaint satisfied the conditions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Act. The trial Court is wrong in not summoning the respondent under Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Nathu Ram v. State of Haryana 1994 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 145 to contend Crl. Misc. No. M-12311 of 2009 (O&M) [ 3 ] that in the present case as per the contents of the complaint the respondent should have been summoned to face trial under Section 376 IPC. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the orders passed by the trial Court and the Appellate Court dated 10.7.2006 (Annexure P/2) and 14.1.2009 (Annexure P/3) do not suffer from any illegality. The Supreme Court in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. & Others 2008 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 171 has observed that a complaint under the Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Act is maintainable only when the accused insults or intimidates with intention to humiliate the complainant being a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, if it is in his knowledge that the complainant belongs to that Caste. In the present case, this basic ingredient is missing in the contents of the complaint that the accused has the knowledge that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. No offence under Section 376 IPC has been made out and, therefore, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nathu Ram's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, the order of the trial Court dated 10.7.2006 (Annexure P/2) as well as the Revisional Authority dated 14.1.2009 (Annexure P/3) calls for no interference. The petition is dismissed. 2.2.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE