1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 32104-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 5.12.2008 *** Satnam Singh & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. N.C. Doabia, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners are seeking quashing of complaint No.143-A/2 dated 21.9.2006, preferred by respondent No.2 as also the summoning order dated 8.2.2007 by dint of which they have been summoned to face trial for the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribues (Prevention of Atrocities Act) and also the order dated 25.4.2008 whereby revision preferred by petitioners Satnam Singh and Surinder Singh has been dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr. The following exhortation, as alleged by the complainant, made by the petitioners against her culminated into institution of the impugned complaint:- “KUTTIYE CHAMARIYE SARPANCHANIYA CHAHE BDPO, DDPO, JAIN D.C. KOI BHI AA JAAYE, ASSIAN EH LAKKAR NAHIN CHUKKAN DEWANGE ATTEY KOI BHI OFFICER MOKE TE AYEGA TAN US DE BUD KE TOTAY KAR DEWANGE ATTAY NEECH CHAMARI SARPANCHNIYE TUN CHEEJ HE KI HAI” 2 It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned complaint is counter-blast to the civil and criminal proceedings pending between the parties. But this question cannot be gone into at this stage and shall be adjudicated upon at an appropriate stage after both the parties would lead their evidence. On the basis of preliminary evidence led by the complainant in the shape of her own testimony coupled with that of Manjit Singh (CW-2) and Sarwan Singh (CW-3), showing the involvement of all the accused in the commission of offence, the learned Magistrate, finding sufficient grounds rightly summoned them for the aforesaid offence. There is no dispute that no hard and fast rule can be laid down to the cases in which the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction of quashing, but the same has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and has only to be exercised in rarest and exceptional cases, in which the present case does not fall. This Court is not required to determine a disputed question of fact, at this stage. Moreover, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. Thus, the present petition deserves dismissal. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above, there is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, whatever has been said hereinabove is without prejudice to the case of the petitioner, on merits. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE December 5,2008 Jiten