IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 889/2010 Rajendra Prasad …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand through Home Secretary, Dehradun …….Respondent October 25, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. MA Khan, Brief Holder for the State. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 5.9.2009 passed by the CJM, Nainital in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1331/2009, Rajendra Prasad v. Pramod Kumar & Ors. and the revisional order dated 19.6.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nainital. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner filed a complaint before the CJM, Nainital alleging that on 20.3.2009 at about 11.25 am when the petitioner was parking his vehicle near Mohanco Chauraha, Nainital, four police constables of PS Mallital, viz., Pramod Kumar, Laxman Singh, Kishor Pant and Prakash Kohli abused him and beaten him with fists and kicks. Learned CJM after recording the statements of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and the witnesses under Section 202 CrPC summoned the aforesaid accused persons vide order dated 5.9.2009 to face the trial for the charge of offence punishable under Section 323 and 504 IPC. However, learned CJM found that no offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is made out against the aforesaid accused persons. Petitioner preferred revision against the aforesaid order dated 5.9.2009 and prayed the accused persons be also summoned to face the trial under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. But the revision of the petitioner was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Nainital. Hence, this petition has been filed. 2 Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the provisions contained Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act are attracted in this case and the learned Magistrate committed mistake of law by not summoning the accused persons to face the trial under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. I do not find any substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner as in the complaint, it has nowhere mentioned that the accused persons are not the member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and they intentionally insulted or intimidated the petitioner with intent to humiliate him in a place within public view. Hence, the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is not made out. 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 petitioner to face the criminal trial u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of Court. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others reported in (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 446. Paragraph 6 of this verdict is very relevant and the same is reproduced as under: “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 3 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 persons are not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and they intentionally insulted or intimidated the petitioner with intent to humiliate him in a place within public view. As such, the Court is of the view that since the essential and basic ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)x) of the SC/ST Act are missing in the complaint, therefore, the learned Magistrate rightly not summoned the accused persons to face the trial under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. Hence, I do not find any illegality or irregularity with the impugned order dated 5.9.2009 passed by the CJM, Nainital and the same has rightly been affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Nainital vide his order dated 19.6.2010 and as such no interference is warranted by this Court. For the reasons recorded above, the present C482 petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 25.10.2010 PRABODH