Crl. Misc. No. M-2596 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-2596 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION:14.1.2009 Labh Singh ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Anr. ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Shri S.S. Duhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.D.S. Sidhu, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY,J. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 11.7.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh in Criminal Complaint titled as Kapoor Singh Vs. Master Ram Sharan and others, vide which, the petitioner has been summoned under Sections 323,452,354,506,34 IPC and 3/4 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Briefly, the facts of the case are that complainant Kapoor Singh filed a complaint in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh against the petitioner under Sections 316,323,452,504,506 IPC and 7/15 of Prevention of Corruption Act and 3/4 of the Act. Vide order dated 11.7.2007, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh has summoned the petitioner under Section 3/4 of the Act and other sections of IPC, which is under challenge in the present petition. Crl. Misc. No. M-2596 of 2008 (2) Mr. S.S. Duhan, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner himself is a Scheduled Caste and he cannot be summoned under Section 3/4 of the Act, as Section 3 of the Act provides for the punishment only on the person who himself is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and this section has wrongly been applied in the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that Kapoor Singh has filed complaint under Sections 316,323,452,504,506 IPC and 7/15 of Prevention of Corruption Act and 3/4 of the Act. Learned counsel also contends that the complainant has filed a complaint against co-accused Master Ram Shran and Master Jagtar Singh before Director, S.C., Punjab, Chandigarh and a copy of the same has been sent to Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa, Deputy Commissioner, Mansa, District Education Officer, Mansa, D.P.I., Punjab, Chandigarh, C.M. Punjab, Education Minister and Dalit Sena President S. Kiranjit Singh Gahari. However, in that complaint nothing was said against the petitioner and the said complaint was investigated by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh. Since the complainant did not produce any evidence to substantiate the allegations, therefore, the complaint was filed. Copy of the inquiry report by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sardulgarh is also annexed with this petition as Annexure P-4. This is also a submission of learned counsel that the present complaint has been filed with a mala fide intention and with certain ulterior motive and the petitioner has been falsely implicated. In spite of the notice issued to respondent No.2, no one is present on his behalf. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and complaint. Allegations in the complaint are that petitioner along with other accused slapped the daughter of complainant and threatened her to kill Crl. Misc. No. M-2596 of 2008 (3) and accordingly she fell down and was kicked in her abdomen due to which abortion took place and dead male child was born. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner himself is a Majbi Sikh by caste which is scheduled caste and he cannot be summoned under the provisions of Section 3/4 of Act, as Section 3 of the Act provides for punishment only for the person, who himself is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the summoning order is liable to be set aside on this count only as the petitioner has also been summoned for offence under Section 323,452,354,506,34 IPC. I have heard the arguments of the counsel representing the parties and gone through their pleadings. Perusal of the complaint shows that the entire occurrence had taken place within the four walls of the house of the complainant. It was nowhere alleged that any person from the neighbourhood was attracted. No reference was made that neighbourhood of the complainant came present and witnessed the occurrence or heard the accused using the derogatory remarks. The basis requirement of commission of an offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act is that the same should be done in any place within public view. The provisions reads as under:- “3. Punishment for offences of atrocities:- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- (i) xxx 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;” In view of the above, no offence under Sections 3/4 of the Act, Crl. Misc. No. M-2596 of 2008 (4) is made out. In fact, no allegation or reference is there in the complaint about commission of offence under Section 3/4 of the Act. In view of the above, the present petition is accepted to the extent that no offence under Section 3/4 of the Act is made out against the petitioner. However, the petition qua the remaining offences under Sections 323,452,354,506,34 IPC is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take all the pleas available to him at an appropriate stage. 14.1.2009 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE