Criminal Misc. No.33789-M OF 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.33789-M OF 2008(O&M) Date of decision:2nd February, 2011 Nirbhai Singh and another .......Petitioners Versus Amar Kaur ........Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present: Mr. D.S.Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Jatinder Kumar, Advocte for the respondent. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Nirmaljit Kaur, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the Criminal Complaint dated 10.9.2005 titled as Amar Kaur versus Nirbhai Singh and another, (Annexure P-6), pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amritsar and further to quash the summoning order dated 25.01.2007(Annexure P-11), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, ! Criminal Misc. No.33789-M OF 2008(O&M) 2 st Class, Amritsar and to quash all subsequent proceedings arising out of the complaint Annexure P-6. While challenging the impugned complaint and summoning orders, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two arguments. The first argument raised before this Court is that the respondent belongs to Majbi caste which is at serial no. 23 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 in Part XIV of the State of Punjab, whereas in the complaint the allegation is that the petitioner referred to him as Chura which falls at serial NO. 2 of the same. As such, since the petitioner does not belong to the caste of Chura, the offence under Section 3(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 read with sections 323/500/504/506 IPC has not been made out. There is no merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in as much as the respondent belongs to Majbi caste which is also one of the caste listed under the category of scheduled caste as well as the caste of Chura. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court which may enable this Court to interpret that such a situation will not attract the offence of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe's (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Admittedly, the petitioner is Majbi and the Majbi is a caste falling under the scheduled caste category. The second argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the present complaint is a counter blast to his civil Criminal Misc. No.33789-M OF 2008(O&M) 3 dispute filed by him and the pressure tactic to force him to withdraw his civil suit against the respondent and reliance has been placed on the Judgment of this Court in Om Parkash Mehra versus Karam Singh 1987(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 586 to substantiate the argument. The said argument can not be sustained in as much as a complaint was filed by the present respondent before the Punjab State Commission. The same was enquired into and was found false. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a civil suit(Annexure P-4) claiming damages against the respondent for having made false allegations against him. Thereafter, the present complaint(Annexure P-6) was filed. The allegation in the said complaint reads as under:- “That on 28.8.2005 it was about 11 A.M I alongwith my husband Arjan Singh I was making inspection in the village then Nirbhai Singh Ex- Sarpanch and accused No.2 Gurvail Singh met in the crossing of the Lane in the village and on seeing me the aforesaid accused came in an anger and accused No. 2 Gurvail Singh started saying that this lady kuti Churi has become the sarpanch of the village and since then she made the sarpanch, she is carrying the challenge on her head. Accused No. 1 Nirbhai Singh Ex- sarparnch that he don't bother for such like “Kuti Churi Sarpanch” and today we will set her Criminal Misc. No.33789-M OF 2008(O&M) 4 right. The exact words used by the accused are as under:- “Accused No. 2 Gurvail Singh stated that EH KUTI CHURI SARPANCH BAN GAI HAI, JADO DI SARPANCH BANI HAI BHUTTRI PHIRDI HAI.” Accused No. 1. Nirbhai Singh ExSarpanch states “EHO JI KUTI CHURI SARPANCHNI NO KI JANDE HAN, AJ IS DI SARPANCHI KANDE HAN.” Because of this there was alarm and on hearing the alarm many people collected including Gurnam Singh, Satnam Singh, Hazoor Singh, Bhupinder Singh etc. Myself and my husband Arjan Singh made request the accused that they should sit together and what ever they want to talk they can do so and why they are using un-parliamentary language against their caste and religion. Thereafter, the accused came in anger. Accused No. 1 Nirbhai Singh Ex- sarpanch started saying “AJ MAR MAR CHHITAR TERI KUTI CHURI THE SARPANCHI KADDE HAN. Thereafter accused No. 2 Gurvail Singh started little push to me and gave blows by saying “Thohanu Kutian Churian Sarkar Ne Tarkian Deke sadesir char dita Hai. Sada vass Chale tan Criminal Misc. No.33789-M OF 2008(O&M) 5 tahanu tuahdi Aukat which hi rakian. Thereafter accused no. 1 Nirbhai Singh Ex-sarpanch also gave pushes to me and tried to assault me, thereafter, my husband Arjan Singh and the persons collected there Gurnam Singh, Satnam Singh, Hazoor Singh, Bhupinder Singh etc. got me separated from the assailants, thereafter, all the accused by giving abuses to me left away from the spot and while leaving they heard threat for my life as well as used un- parliamentary language against my caste and religion. The entire occurrence of the witnesses by me, my husband Arjan Singh and Gurnam Singh, Satnam Singh, Hazoor Singh, Bhupinder Singh etc.” There are specific allegations levelled against the present petitioner. Therefore, at this stage, it would be difficult to come to the conclusion that the same is counter blast or pressure tactic. The respondent earlier had also filed a complaint, wherein the present petitioner had indulged in similar misbehaviour towards the respondent. No doubt the allegation in the said complaint was found to be incorrect but nevertheless the allegation in the present complaint make out a prima facie case and would require to be established which is only possible through trial and recording the Criminal Misc. No.33789-M OF 2008(O&M) 6 evidence. The judgment on which the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance is on different set of facts. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the personal appearance of the petitioner be exempted. The petitioner is at liberty to move the said application before the trial court which shall be decided in accordance with law. In view of the above observations, the present petition is dismissed. [NIRMALJIT KAUR] JUDGE 2nd February, 2011 Shivani Kaushik