IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.620 OF 2007 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Ram Lal Pasi …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …………Respondents Dated: August 6, 2010 Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Adv. for the applicant Sri Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 Sri Ramji Srivastava, Adv. for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the orders dated 6.5.2006 and 11.7.2007 passed by Ist Civil Judge (J.D.)/JM Dehradun and Addl. District Judge II/Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun respectively and also to transfer the proceedings of Crl. Case No.578/2004 U/s 323/504/506 IPC from the court of JM Dehradun to the court of Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter to be referred as the SC/ST Act], Dehradun. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that petitioner lodged a complaint against the respondents 2 and 3 that on 13.1.2003 at about 10:15 PM those respondents came along with 4-5 others boys in the house of complainant being armed with Tamanchas, where they uttered caste indicated words to him and dragged him out from the room, and started abusing him and when the wife of complainant resisted, the respondents and their accomplices went away threatening the complainant to his life. On this complaint, the statement of complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and statement of Purnima, wife of complainant, was recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and after perusing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, learned CJM Dehradun vide order dated 2 17.6.2003 summoned the petitioners u/s 323/504/506 IPC. On 9.11.2005, J.M./First Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) Dehradun framed charges against the respondents 2 and 3 u/s 323/504/506 IPC. On 29.3.2006 the petitioner moved an application before the court below that since the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is also made out against the respondents/accused, as such the case may be committed to the court of Sessions. The said application was rejected by the J.M./Ist Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) Dehradun on 6.5.2006. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision which came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 11.7.2007 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Second, Dehradun. Hence this petition. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent nos.2 & 3 denying the averments made in the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that apart from the offences punishable under the IPC, the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act are also attracted in this case in hand against the respondents 2 and 3, but the trial court has committed manifest error of law in not summoning the respondents/ accused u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and even the revisional court has also not applied its mind. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 and 3 argued that as in the entire complaint, it was nowhere mentioned that the respondents 2 and 3/accused were not the members of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and they intentionally insulted or intimated with intent to humiliate the petitioner within public view, hence the offence punishable under 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is not made out. I find force in this argument put forth on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3. On a bare perusal of the complaint itself, there is no mention whatsoever that the accused persons were not the members of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe community and they intentionally insulted or intimated with intent to humiliate the petitioner within public view. It is settled law that when the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the respondents/accused to face the criminal trial under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law. Reliance is placed upon a Hon’ble Supreme Court verdict in the case of “Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & others reported 3 in (2009) 1 SCC (Cri.) 446”. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment is reproduced as below: - “In the instant case, the allegation of Respondent 3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.05.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant- accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (Respondent 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate Respondent 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law” Perusal of the complaint lodged by the petitioner shows that the complainant has nowhere alleged that the accused are not the members of the Scheduled Caste of Scheduled Tribe community and they intentionally insulted or intimated with intent to humiliate the petitioner within public view. As such, the Court is of the view that the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act are not made out against them and the trial court was perfectly justified in not summoning the accused u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and even the revisional court was also justified in upholding the order passed by the trial court. For the reasons as aforesaid, C482 petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 11.02.2008 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 6, 2010 Rdang