IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1521 of 2008 (O/M). Date of Decision : September 18, 2009. Billu @ Babu Lal son of Shri Chandgi Ram ...... Petitioner Versus. State of Haryana, and another ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Sat Narain Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Kumar Jindal, A.A.G. Haryana, for respondent No. 1-State. Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.. In the present petition, the challenge herein is to charge framed against the petitioner and other co-accused, vide order dated 12.07.2008, passed by the learned Special Judge, Rewari, to the limited extent that the offence under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), cannot be sustained. Counsel for the petitioner contends that it has nowhere been mentioned in the criminal complaint or statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste and, therefore, made an effort to dis-possess or caused hindrance in the enjoyment of possession of Crl. Revision No. 1521 of 2008 (O/M). the land. He relies upon the judgment of this court in the case of Jogender Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and another, 2009 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) page 100. The further contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the investigation had been conducted by Sub Inspector of Police and, therefore, framing of charge under Section 3 of the Act, cannot withstand the legal requirement of law. He contends that as per Section 9 of the Act and Rule 7 of the Rules the Investigating Officer has to be not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. For this contention he relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Versus Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh, 2009 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) page 758. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 2 has submitted that the requirement of knowledge with regard to complainant being of Scheduled Caste and then insulting or intimidating intentionally, humiliating or using words in derogation regarding caste within public view would fall under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is being pressed into service by counsel for the petitioner, whereas the offence as made out against the petitioner is under Section 3(1)(v) of the Act. The judgment, therefore, of this Court in Jogender Singh's case (supra), would not be applicable to the case in hand. It is the contention of counsel for the respondent No. 1-State by referring to the challan (Annexure-P-3) that on addition of Sections under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, the investigation of the case was conducted by Additional Superintendent of Police V.P. Godara and it is only he, who had recorded the statements of the witnesses and completed the investigation. He, thus, submits that the judgment relied upon by counsel for -2- Crl. Revision No. 1521 of 2008 (O/M). the petitioner in the case of State of M.P. (supra), would have no application as the investigation of the case had been conducted by an officer higher in rank to that of Deputy Superintendent of Police being Additional Superintendent of Police. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Section 3(1)(v), and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, read as follows :- “3. Punishments for offences of atrocities. - (i) to (iv) xxx xxx xxx xxx (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. (vi) to (ix) xxx xxx xxx xxx (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. (xi) to (xv) xxx xxx xxx xxx” A perusal of the F.I.R. (Annexure-P-2) clearly indicates that the petitioner was one of the co-accused, who had forged the deed of relinquishment and on the basis of said deed, had tried to take possession of the land in dispute, which was admittedly in the possession of the complainant's family since the year, 1955, as tenant over the land and they were in cultivating possession as Gair Marusi. The fact that the complainant/respondent No. 2 belongs to Scheduled Caste, is not disputed. -3- Crl. Revision No. 1521 of 2008 (O/M). However, the contention, which has been raised is that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste. In any case, in the light of the fact that the requirement of the prior knowledge is only with regard to an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, as is apparent from Section 4 of the Act, the contention as raised by counsel for the petitioner has no force at all. The judgment, therefore, relied upon by counsel for the petitioner in the case of Jogender Singh's case (supra) has no relevance to the facts of the present case. The statements of the complainant/respondent No. 2 and other family members have been placed on record as Annexure-R-2/1 and Annexure-R-2/2 by the complainant. A perusal of the same as well as F.I.R., which is based on the complaint made by the complainant/respondent No. 2, clearly spells out that the complainant was in possession of the property in question and an effort was made to take possession of land in dispute. A perusal of the above reproduced provisions of the Act leaves no manner of doubt that a prima-facie commission of offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the Act is made out against the petitioner. As regards the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the investigation had been conducted by Sub Inspector and, therefore, the same cannot be said to stand the scrutiny of law and the charge framed under Section 3 of the Act, cannot be sustained, only deserves to be noticed and rejected in view of the fact that after the addition of offence under the Act, the investigation was conducted by Additional Superintendent of Police, who had recorded the statements and had proceeded with the matter thereafter. The judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. (supra), therefore, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. -4- Crl. Revision No. 1521 of 2008 (O/M). Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE September 18, 2009. sjks. -5-