Criminal Misc. No.M-23246 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-23246 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.8.2011 Wazir Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana. Mr.N.R.Dahiya, Advocate, for resondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of complaint dated 14.10.2005 (Annexure P-1) as well as summoning order dated 19.10.2006 (Annexure P-2) under Section 3 (i), (iv) and (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act') and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The contents of the complaint (Annexure P-1) read as under:- “The complainant informs that killa Nos. 7/14-15-16-17-18 Criminal Misc. No.M-23246 of 2009 (O&M) 2 measuring 26 Kanals 10 Marlas surplus land of village Kheri Meham Tehsil Meham, was allotted to Sh. Jamna s/o Bichha Ram Scheduled caste by Allotment Authority Rohtak on 5.11.1976. He (Jamna) deposited ` 864.15P Ist installment on 01.04.1977 by Dhakla from and another installment of ` 864.15P vide Challan no. 9032. He took possession on 24 June 1979 as per rapat roznamcha no. 468 Mutation no. 1179 was sanctioned on 05.09.1983 and became owner in possession in Jamabandi for the year 1990-91. Jamna died on 13.09.1995. Death certificate is attached. Sh. Wazir Singh, Raj Singh, Azad Singh, Ajit Singh sons of Gian Ram, Jat Non-scheduled caste of village Kheri Meham P.S. Meham, District Rohak are cultivating and occupying the land allotted to the father of the complainant knowingly and forcefully and depriving the members of family of Jamna from any benefit, they being scheduled caste. Legal action be taken.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were big land owners and were merely trying to get possession of the land which had been declared surplus. The petitioners were taking recourse of law and hence, the complaint in question was liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant, on the other hand, has submitted that all the accused were guilty of offence under Sections 3 (i) (iv) and (v) of the Act as they had taken Criminal Misc. No.M-23246 of 2009 (O&M) 3 possession of the land belonging to the complainant, who was member of the Scheduled Caste, and had filed frivolous cases against him. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. Sections 3 (iv), (v) and (viii) of the Act read as under:- (1) Whoever, not being a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, - (i) forces a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to drink or eat any inedible or obnoxious substance; (iv) wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land owned by, or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to, a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or gets the land allotted to him transferred; (v) wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights over any land, premises or water;” A perusal of the complaint does not reveal that any offence under the Act has been committed by the petitioners. It has not been mentioned in the complaint that the complainant had deposited the entire instalments qua the land allotted to him. It has also not mentioned in the complaint as to when the complainant was dispossessed from the suit property. The land belonging to the petitioners was declared surplus and it appears that they are merely Criminal Misc. No.M-23246 of 2009 (O&M) 4 trying to save their land from being declared surplus. It cannot be assumed that the petitioners are causing any harassment to the complainant on account of his being member of the scheduled caste. Since the contents of the complaint are vague, the same was liable to be dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Complaint dated 14.10.2005 (Annexure P-1) as well as summoning order dated 19.10.2006 (Annexure P-2) under Section 3 (i), (iv) and (v) of the Act and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 30, 2011 anita