Crl. Misc. No. M-10351 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-10351 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: January 27, 2010 Gurmit Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Chinder Singh ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing complaint case no. 190 dated 25.10.2005 titled Chinder Singh Vs. Gurmit Singh. The complaint has been filed against the petitioner for commission of an offence under Section 3(X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “The Act”) readwith Section 500 IPC placed on record as Annexure P-1 and order of summoning dated 10.11.2007 Annexure P-4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that even if the complaint is accepted at its face value, offence under Section 3 (X) of the Act is not spelt out. The respondent-complainant has not anywhere made a mention in the complaint that the petitioner knew that the respondent-complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and knowing so had Crl. Misc. No. M-10351 of 2009 2 intentionally insulted or intimidated with an intent to humiliate him. In this regard, reliance has been placed on 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 377 titled Chaman Lal Goyal Vs. Kaur Singh. Learned counsel further states that complaint is a procured one. The respondent-complainant had been used by another person namely Sukhdev Singh Ex. Sarpanch of the village to file the complaint. The petitioner did not even know the respondent-complainant. It has further been argued that an inquiry had been conducted by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Moga in regard to the incident. A finding has been returned to the effect that no such incident took place. Reference has been made to Annexure P-6 dated 28.02.2005. Despite notice, the respondent-complainant has not appeared. It seems that the respondent-complainant made a complaint to Punjab State Commission for Scheduled Caste. On receiving the complaint, an inquiry was marked to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner asked the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Moga to conduct an inquiry. Inquiry report dated 28.02.2005 has been placed on record as Annexure P-6. After hearing relevant parties and giving them an opportunity to lead evidence, it has been recorded in the inquiry report that nothing had happened in the bank on the alleged date of incident i.e. 10.01.2005 from which it could be proved that bank manager i.e. the petitioner, had used abusive words in the bank. Complainant had not made the complaint, but it was made on the instigation of someone else. The report notices that the other employees and customers of Crl. Misc. No. M-10351 of 2009 3 the bank had given evidence which forms the basis of the report. In the inquiry report, reference has been given to the fact that one Sukhdev Singh, Ex. Sarpanch of village Mangewala, was inimical towards the petitioner in view of the fact that in discharge of official duties of the petitioner who was serving as Manager of a Bank, had stopped payment of fixed deposit of Sukhdev Singh. Sukhdev Singh had given guarantee in regard to some loans which had not been repaid and, therefore, the punitive action had to be taken by the petitioner. I find that the inquiry has been conducted in regard to legal proceedings initiated at the instance of respondent-complainant before Punjab State Commission for Scheduled Caste. The Commission itself is an entity which deals with such complaints and issues. Under the circumstances, the inquiry report, to which reference has been made hereinabove, cannot be brushed aside while considering the veracity of the statements. Other than this, from the complaint it is made evident that it has not been stated anywhere specifically that the respondent-complainant was a member of Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe and the petitioner used the offending words knowing that fact, therefore, in my opinion, the matter would also be covered by judgment rendered in Chamal Lal Goyal's case (supra) (para no. 5). The complaint seems to have been filed for mala fide reasons. It tantamounts to abuse of Court and process of law. The special Legislation meant for social purpose has been abused for settling personal scores. Similar complaint was made to Punjab State Commission for Scheduled Caste which has been filed in view of the finding recorded after enquiry. Facts and circumstances, when collectively considered, convince Crl. Misc. No. M-10351 of 2009 4 me that continuance of proceedings shall result in abuse of process of Court. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Complaint case no. 190 dated 25.10.2005 titled Chinder Singh Vs. Gurmit Singh and further proceedings are hereby quashed. 27.01.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE