Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranbir Singh @ Bheera & Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 21 September, 2010
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C.Puri
Criminal Misc. No.M.26517 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M.26517 of 2010
Date of decision 21.09.2010.
Ranbir Singh @ Bheera & others
...... Petitioners.
versus
State of Haryana and another
...... Respondents.
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI.
Present : Mr. R.S.Tacoria, Advocate for the petitioners.
K.C.PURI, J.
Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 5.7.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal whereby charges under Sections 3(i) (x), 3(xv) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act and under Sections 323, 325, 427, 395, 148 and read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the petitioners.
The law was set in motion on the complaint moved by Soran son of Telu Ram in which he has stated that on 7.2.2003 some persons of Scheduled Castes community gathered in village Harsola and they were chalking out the strategy for celebrations of Guru Ravi Dass Jayanti. While these persons were convening a Panchayat, accused Karan Singh son of Criminal Misc. No.M.26517 of 2010 2 Pirthi, Rajiv son of Dharam Pal, Sattu son of Kehar Singh who are jats by caste all residents of village Harsola intervened in the meeting and picked up quarrel with them and used abusive language against Guru Ravi Dass as well as members of Harijan community while saying "CHAMAR COMMUNITY IK GIRI HUI COM HAI GHATIA KAUM HAI AND THEIR GURU IS ALSO KAMIN/GHATIA AND GIRA HUA HAI." The tension prevailed in village Harsola on account of sue of above derogatory language and to resolve the dispute the meetings were going on in the village amongst senior members of both the community but no settlement took place. For amicable settlement of dispute, Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Kaithal called the Panchyat members of Harijan Community of village Harsola at Kaithal on 10.2.2003 at about 1.30p.m. and while the members of Scheduled Castes community were preparing themselves for going to police station, the members of general community i.e. originally accused No.1 to 94 in the complaint along with accused No.95 to 97 of the original complaint who are the police officials and who were present in village Harsola at that time witnessed that accused No.1 to 18 with many others duly armed with lathis and iron rods and in collusion with police officials i.e. accused No.95 to 97 and on their indication assaulted the complaint, Amit son of Dhoop Singh, Jagdish son of Badama, Randhir son of Bhagwan Dass, Randhir son of Punjaba, Phula son of Munna, Ram Phal son of Churia Ram, Kanti Devi wife of Shingara Singh and inflicted injuries on their person with their respective weapons. The other accused whose names are appearing at Sr.No.19 to 81 in the original complaint also inflicted injuries on the person of ladies named Guddi wife of Randeep, Criminal Misc. No.M.26517 of 2010 3 Murti Devi wife of Shingara, Manoj son of Parkash, Ram Kishan son of Ronak Ram, Nirmal Singh son of Dhoop Singh, Jai Singh son of Ramji Lal, Puran son of Shadi, Mange Ram son of Daya Chand, Mukhtiari Devi wife of Bir Singh, Anita wife of Balwant and Manbhari wife of Hari Singh. The members of upper classes of the village also looted the properties of the complainant Soran Singh and other witnesses including valuable articles, ornaments etc. and the accused whose names are appearing at Sr. No.82 to 94 in the original complaint caused damage to the houses of the complainant and others by throwing stones, bricks and with their respective weapons. The entire occurrence allegedly took place in the presence of police force and they did not intervene and remained silent spectators. It was alleged that members of the general community i.e. accused No.1 to 94 had hatched conspiracy with the police officials with the police officials whose names are appearing at Sr.No.95 to 97 in the original complaint and it was at the indication/instance of the police officials that the entire incident had taken place. The complainant and other injured some how or the other managed to save their lives and were shifted to civil hospital, Kaithal for treatment. The accused followed the injured upto Civil Hospital, Kaithal with an intention to kill them. The members of Scheduled caste community were forced to leave their houses at village Harsola and members of /Dalip community collected at the residence of Deputy Commissioner at Kaithal and remained on Dharna (protest) up to 2.00p.m. on 12.2.2003. Superintendent of police, Kaithal tried to resolve the matter as Deputy Commissioner, was not available and after his arrival, the members of Harijan community were sent to Geeta Bhawan, Kaithal, where Criminal Misc. No.M.26517 of 2010 4 they took shelter. While the members of Harijan community were refugees at Geeta Bhawan, statement of complainant was recorded in civil hospital, Kaithal on the basis of which formal FIR No.39 dated 11.2.2003 was registered at police station Sadar Kaithal. The grouse of the complainant is that his statement was not read over to him by the police and distorted version was given in the complaint. It was contended by the complainant that Satbir Singh son of Kali Ram, Om Parkash son of Badna, Daulat Ram son of Badan, Subhash sons of Soran, Ishar son of Ramji Lal, Shingara son of Puran, Shamsher Singh son of Ronak Ram and Sewa son of Dhoop Singh and many others had witnessed the occurrence.
The learned Special Judge observed that it is a case of sensitive nature inasmuch as members of Scheduled Caste community of village Harsola District Kaithal were subjected to cruelty and there has been an incident of arson, looting and dismantling the houses of the scheduled caste community of village Harsola. So, after going through whole of the record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that prima facie offence under Sections 3(i) (x), 3(xv) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act and under Sections 323, 325, 427, 395, 148 and read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code are made out against the accused including the offence.
Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 5.7.2010 passed by Shri A.K.Shori, learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Kaithal the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that initially five accused were arrayed as party whereas thirteen more persons were involved and thereafter 97 persons have been involved in the present case. Criminal Misc. No.M.26517 of 2010 5 It is further contended that the allegations made in the complaint are vague and no specific allegation against each of the petitioners has been made. So, in view of authority Neelu Chopra and Anr. vs. Bharti 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 115, charge is liable to be quashed against the petitioners.
I have carefully considered the said submission and have gone through the records of the case.
The petitioners earlier filed revision petition against the order of summoning which was disposed off with the directions to raise all the pleas raised herein before the trial Court at an appropriate stage. The trial Court now after going through the whole of the record came to the conclusion that charges under Sections 3(i) (x), 3(xv) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act and under Sections 323, 325, 427, 395, 148 and read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code are made out against the accused.
To frame the charge, prima facie case is required to be made out by the prosecution. Number of persons including the ladies have received the injuries, which prima facie prove the commission of offence. It has been mentioned in the complaint that the accused were armed with weapons and have inflicted injuries to various persons including ladies. It has also been stated that they have used the bad words against the caste of the complainant.
So far as authority Neelu Chopra and Another's case (supra) is concerned that authority is distinguishable as in that case very old age parents of the accused have been involved without any specific allegations against them. Charge can be framed even on suspicious only. Criminal Misc. No.M.26517 of 2010 6
So, I do not see any reason for invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. on the facts of the present case.
Consequently, the petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.
However, nothing observed above shall be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE September 21, 2010 sv