CRM No. M-10837 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-10837 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : September 28, 2011 Kedar Nath son of Ram Saran .... PETITIONER Vs. State of Punjab and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. R.S.Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A. G. Punjab. None for respondent No. 2. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of “IPC Complaint No. 29/1/09 dated 20.02.2009 under Section 3 (i) (X) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 323, 504 IPC (Annexure P-2) as also the summoning order dated 16.12.2009 (Annexure P-3). CRM No. M-10837 of 2010 (O&M) 2 It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the above-said complaint has been filed by the complainant with a mala-fide intention and has been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the petitioner with a view to implicate him due to personal grudge. He contends that as a matter of fact, the complainant- respondent No. 2 was employed by the petitioner in his godown of scrap. The complainant, along with other two employees, had taken away the goods from the godown and when the petitioner asked them about the missing goods, the complainant along with two others stopped coming for work. The petitioner, faced with this situation, filed a complaint with the Police on 08.10.2008 (Annexure P-1) for conducting an enquiry from these three persons about this fact. He, on this basis, contends that complaint dated 20.02.2009 is a counter-blast to the said application filed by the petitioner with the Police and when the matter was being enquired into by the Police, this complaint has been filed. As a matter of fact, no such incident has taken place and it is a concocted story. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604. His further contention is that the complainant has not mentioned his caste in the complaint and has merely stated that he belongs to Ad-dharmi community, whereas the allegations made, which are termed as derogatory remarks calling him by caste, are “Kutte Chamaar”. He further contends that had such an incident occurred, the complainant would have surely informed the Police but not a whisper in this regard has been made in the complaint. He, on this basis, prays for quashing of the complaint and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order. CRM No. M-10837 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Respondent No. 2 was duly served but none has put in appearance on his behalf neither any reply has been filed. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. Merely because the petitioner has filed an application dated 08.10.2008 (Annexure P-1) against the complainant, would not in itself be enough to bring it within the plea of mala-fide and malicious institution of a case with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance because of some personal and private grudge. The plea of the counsel for the petitioner that the complainant had not mentioned his caste in the complaint, appears to be incorrect in the light of the assertions made in para-6 of the complaint where it is so stated that the petitioner had, with an intention to humiliate the complainant, raised/passed derogatory remarks, as mentioned in para- 4, against the complainant in the name of his caste in public view, which clearly shows that he belongs to a particular caste, which was stated to have been used by the petitioner in a public view in a derogatory manner. The next contention of the counsel for the petitioner that no information with regard to the incident having taken place on 16.02.2009, has been submitted to the police before filing the complaint in Court on 20.02.2009, does not carry weight for the reason that there is no bar to approach the Court through a complaint without approaching the police authorities and in any case, there is hardly any gap between the date of incident and the date, on which the complaint is filed. It would not be out of way to mention here that not only the complainant has appeared before the trial Court and given his statement but Baldev Singh and Mohan Singh, the other witnesses, have also been examined, who had supported the case of the complainant, reference whereof has been made by the trial Court in the summoning CRM No. M-10837 of 2010 (O&M) 4 order dated 16.12.2009 (Annexure P-3). In view of the above, the contention, as raised by the counsel for the petitioner, cannot be accepted. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. Nothing said herein above shall have any effect on the trial, which is pending before the Court and will not be deemed to be an expression on the merits of the case. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) September 28, 2011 JUDGE pj