Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdit Singh S/O S. Satnam Singh And ... vs State Of Punjab And Another on 18 November, 2011
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CRM No. M-6215 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM No. M-6215 of 2010
Date of Decision :November 18, 2011
Gurdit Singh s/o S. Satnam Singh and another
.... PETITIONERS
Vs.
State of Punjab and another
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
* * *
Present : Mr. Pardeep Rajput, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. G.S.Brar, AAG, Punjab,
for respondent No. 1.
None for respondent No. 2.
* * *
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of a complaint No. 277 of 17.03.2005 filed under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1989') read with Sections 427, 379, 506 and 34 IPC titled as Sarvan Singh vs. Sanjeev Kumar and another. CRM No. M-6215 of 2010 2
Counsel for the petitioners contends that no offence under the Act, 1989 is made out and in any case, the basic ingredient, as required under Section 3 of the Act, 1989, is not incorporated in the complaint nor has it come in the preliminary evidence given by the complainant before the trial Court, therefore, the summoning of the petitioners under Section 3 of the Act, 1989 is not sustainable. His further contention is that petitioner No. 1-Gurdit Singh could not have been prosecuted for the reason that he belongs to the scheduled caste. In support of this contention, he has attached a Scheduled Caste Certificate issued to him. As regards the other offences, it is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have not been summoned under Section 379 IPC and the offences under Section 427, 506 and 34 IPC are not made out and thus, the present petition deserves to be allowed by quashing the complaint.
Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Punjab, which has filed its reply and has stated that since it is a private complaint, therefore, there is no interest involved so far as the State of Punjab is concerned.
Initially, Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate, had put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2-complainant on 23.05.2011 and thereafter, on 30.08.2011, and 15.09.2011 but on 29.09.2011 and again today, he has chosen not to appear nor any reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2.
I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the records of the case.
Petitioner No. 1 cannot be prosecuted under the Act, 1989 for the reason that he belongs to the scheduled caste himself, which is CRM No. M-6215 of 2010 3 apparent from the Scheduled Caste Certificate dated 25.10.2001 attached with the petition as Annexure P-3.
The basic ingredient, as mandated under Section 3 of the Act, 1989, requires that the person, who is an accused for the offence should be aware of the fact that the complainant belongs to the scheduled caste and that after knowing that, he had intentionally used words to insult and intimidate with an intent to humiliate a member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in any place and in a public view. This basic ingredient is absent in the complaint and, therefore, the complaint and the summoning of the petitioners by the trial Court vide order dated 08.07.2009 (Annexure P-2) cannot sustain.
As regards the offences under Sections 427, 506 and 34 IPC are concerned, a perusal of the complaint and the summoning order do indicate that prima-facie such offences appear to have been committed by the petitioners, for which they have rightly been summoned by the trial Court.
In view of the above, the present petition is partly allowed by setting aside the summoning order dated 08.07.2009 (Annexure P-2) to the limited extent wherein petitioners have been summoned to face trial under Section 3 of the Act, 1989 and the order summoning the petitioners for offences under Sections 427, 506 and 34 IPC is maintained.
Any observations made herein above shall have no effect on the merits of the case before the trial Court.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
November 18, 2011 JUDGE
pj