Criminal Revision No. 960 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No. 960 of 2008 Date of decision : May 23, 2008 Ram Singh -Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others -Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri dated March 28, 2008, whereby the learned Court below opined that prima facie case was not made out for framing charge under Sections 3 & 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( for short the 'Act') and respondents No.2 to 4 were discharged. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has exceeded its jurisdiction while discharging the accused at the stage of framing of charge under Sections 3 & 4 of the Act. His submission is that the Court should not have appreciated the evidence at the stage of framing of charge and mere statement of the petitioner and the material placed by the prosecution should have been relied upon. However, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any substance in the contention raised. Criminal Revision No. 960 of 2008 (2) There are inherent contradictions in the statement made by the petitioner and also the material collected by the prosecution, on the basis of which charge was sought to be framed. Though the allegation was that on December 9, 2007 the petitioner as well as the accused party were summoned to the police station for compromise for an earlier incident, which occurred on November 14, 2007, it was at that time that the accused called the petitioner by his caste in complete violation of the provisions of the Act. However, no police official is a witness to the occurrence, though the incident took place inside the police station. In the complaint also, the petitioner has not named any person accompanying him at that time. However, later on statements of two persons namely Jarnail Singh and Mam Chand were got recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In none of the statements it was mentioned as to by what name and in what manner the petitioner was called by the accused. The only statement was that the petitioner was abused by calling his caste. Keeping in view these inherent contradictions, the Court below opined that prima facie no case was made out against the accused for framing charge under the Act. The material on record with the Court was not sufficient to have even strong suspicion of the offence having been committed by the accused. In view of my above discussion, I do not find any substance in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Rajesh Bindal Judge May 23, 2008 `ask'