IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CrMMO No.37 of 2009 with CrMMO Mo.141 of 2009. Judgment reserved on: 5th April, 2010. Date of Decision: 8th April, 2010. 1. CrMMO No. 37 of 2009. Darshan Singh Saini and another .. Petitioners. Versus Sohan Singh .. Respondent. 2. CrMMO No.141 of 2009. Sohan Singh .. Petitioner. Versus Darshan Singh and another .. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. 1. CrMMO No. 37 of 2009. For the petitioners: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate, For the respondent: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate. 2. CrMMO No. 141 of 2009. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate, Surinder Singh, J. By this common order, both the above petitions are being disposed of together, as having arisen from the same order. Petitioners Darshan Singh Saini and Beli Ram were summoned as accused in the private complaint 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - filed by Sohan Singh respondent in CrMMO No.37 of 2009 in the learned trial Court registered as Case No.147-I of 2008 for the offence under Sections 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as such the instant petition (CrMMO No.37 of 2009), has been filed by them for quashing the order dated 6th February, 2009, whereas petitioner/complainant Sohan Lal in CrMMO No.141 of 2009, prayed for modification of the impugned order to add the offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Darshan Singh and Beli Ram petitioners herein are running a hotel at Baddi and also have a Boring Company. Complainant Sohan Singh was initially employed in the hotel but later he was promoted and appointed in the Boring Company on the enhanced salary. While working in the said Company, there was no complaint regarding his work and conduct. It is alleged that after the general election of the State Assembly he did not join the duties. Petitioners Darshan Singh and Beli Ram came to know later in the month of March, 2008 that a complaint was preferred by the complainant at Nalagarh containing the frivolous allegations. In the complaint filed by Sohan Singh complainant it is alleged that he was appointed as - 3 - Receptionist in the year 2004 in the hotel of petitioners at a monthly salary of Rs.5,500/-. On 20th August, 2005 petitioner Darshan Singh shifted him to the Boring Company at a monthly salary of Rs.8,000/- where he was required to do marketing and also to sign quotations etc. besides preparing the bills. He also helped him as a driver during the Assembly election, but he was not paid the salary in time. Darshan Singh entered a suspicion that the complainant did not help him in getting votes of his relatives thus he refused to pay the salary to him. On 15th January, 2008 he took complainant, Bhagat Ram and Chet Ram to the office of Darshan Singh and demanded his balance amount of his salary at that time his father Beli Ram was also present. The petitioners started hurling abuses to him, also gave beatings and criminally intimidated him. Thereafter he reported the matter to the police, but they did not take any action, as such he filed the complaint under Sections 323, 506, 341, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The record reveals that the learned Magistrate recorded the preliminary evidence of the complainant, thereafter sent the complaint for conducting enquiry by the police under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On enquiry, police found it a case of civil nature with respect to the realization of the salary amount and it was also reported that the complainant had made - 4 - the complaint after one year of the alleged offence, which caused suspicion. Learned trial Court after considering the report and also the statements of the witnesses found a prima facie case for summoning petitioners Darshan Singh and Beli Ram for the aforesaid offences. I have examined the police report as well as the preliminary evidence recorded before the learned trial Court. CW-1 complainant stated that on 15th January, 2008 when he alongwith Bhagat Ram and Chet Ram went to realize the balance amount. On seeing them petitioner Darshan Singh got angered and started hurling abuses and gave beating to him, whereas Beli Ram abetted the offence. CW-2 Raghubir Singh and CW-3 Chet Ram had also made similar version. The standard for ascertaining whether the evidence in the preliminary enquiry discloses sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused is lower than one at the stage of framing the charges in a warrant case tri-able by the Magistrate. In the instant case, the complaint, examination of the complainant and his witnesses coupled with the report of the enquiry do not prima facie satisfy the ingredients of Sections 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the trial Court was not justified in taking cognizance for the offences aforesaid. At the best there - 5 - appears to be a reasonable ground to proceed against the petitioners under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant has not made any averment in the complaint or in the preliminary statement recorded before the learned trial Court that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the accused party is from upper caste. He only stated that the accused party hurled abusive language in the name of caste. The complainant did not allege that he belonged to Scheduled Caste and accused party from upper caste and they deliberately did so because he belonged to Scheduled Caste. Thus, no case is made out for summoning the accused party under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Therefore, CrMMO No.141 of 2009 filed by him, i.e., Sohan Singh is dismissed; but however, there are reasonable grounds to proceed against Darshan Singh and Beli Ram for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code but not under Sections 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the impugned order dated 6th February, 2009 is modified to the above extent. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 3rd May, 2010. With the above modifications in the order impugned, CrMMO No.141 of 2009 filed by Sohan Singh is - 6 - dismissed and CrMMO No.37 of 2009 is partly allowed to the above extent. Cr.M.P. No.716 of 2009 in Cr.MMO No.141 of 2009. In view of the disposal of the main matter, this application has become infructuous. Record of the Court below be sent back forthwith. April 8, 2010. (Surinder Singh), J. (rc)