The High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of a complaint and summoning order under the S.C. & S.T. Act, 1989. The Court held that the evidence discloses commission of an offence and that the Magistrate correctly issued process prima facie.
The petition for quashing of the complaint and summoning order is dismissed in limine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
**Crl. Misc. No. 18021-M of 2009. Date of Decision: 8.7.2009 *****
Gulab Singh & Ors.
.. Petitioners
Vs.
Balbir Kaur & Anr.
.. Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
**Present:Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. *****
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
Respondent No.1 Balbir Kaur filed a private complaint against the petitioners wherein she complained of commission of offences under Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the S.C. & S.T. Act, 1989) by the petitioners. According to the allegations contained in the complaint, she belongs to Majhabi Sikh Balmiki, a Scheduled Caste. All the petitioners on 12.2.2006 man-hanled with her husband and gave beatings to him and in order to insult and degrade the complainant-respondent, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, used abusive language by taking her caste name, in the presence of her husband, one Gurvinder Singh and Jasbir Kaur. As per allegations, the petitioners uttered the following words in the presence of aforesaid persons:-
“ CHURIYA CHAMARIYA TERI HIMMAT KIDDA HOI SADE NAAL GAL KARAN DI. SARKAR NE TUHANU BAHUT BHUE CHARAYA HOYA HAI. ASI TUHANU THEEK KAR DENA HAI. WADDI AI RANJIT SINGH DI HAMDARD ” .
In preliminary evidence the complainant besides examining
2
herself as CW.1, got examined Gurvinder Singh as CW-2 and Jasbir Kaur as CW.3.
The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar on appreciation of preliminary evidence, found sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners under Section 3(x) of the S.C. & S.T. Act, 1989 and accordingly ordered for issuance of process against them.
Dissatisfied with the same the petitioners have filed the instant petition and have sought for quashing of the impugned complaint (Annexure P-1) as also the summoning order (Annexure P-2).
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the case file carefully.
The learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to judgment and decree (Annexures P-3 & P-4) have contended that the petitioner Gulab Singh is having some dispute with Ranjit Singh, with whom the complainant is admittedly working as helper and as a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by petitioner Gulab Singh against Ranjit Singh, the instant complaint has been got filed through the complainant, at the instance of Ranjit Singh and that the provisions of S.C. & S.T. Act are not attracted against the petitioners. The argument is not tenable. At the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits and de-merits of the case. The complaint as well as the preliminary evidence led by the complainant in the shape of her testimonies coupled with that of Gurvinder Singh and Jasbir Kaur discloses the commission of offence under the provisions of S.C. & S.T. Act by the petitioners. On the strength of cases reported as Jogender Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 100, Chaman Lal Goyal Vs. Kaur Singh 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 377, Dr. Satish Kumar Thukral Vs. Prem 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 491 and Rajinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 245, it has been contended that there is nothing on record that the accused were aware of caste of the complainant and hence complaint is liable to be quashed. The petitioners cannot derive any benefit from
3
the cases, referred to above. A perusal of the aforesaid cases shows that there was very general utterance attributed to the accused therein, from which it cannot be inferred that they were aware of the caste of the complainant therein. But from the nature of very utterance, referred to above, attributed to the petitioners in the instant case, it appears that they were well aware that the complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste. Whether it is true or false or that the instant complaint is counter-blast to the proceedings alleged to have been initiated against Ranjit Singh by the petitioner Gulab Singh or it was not within public view, will have to be decided during the trial. At this juncture, no fault could be find out with the approach of the learned Magistrate in issuing process against the petitioners while relying upon the material placed before it. There is no merit in the instant petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, whatever has been said hereinabove is without prejudice to the merits of the case.
(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE
July 8,2009 Jiten
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the provisions of the S.C. & S.T. Act are attracted against the petitioners given the nature of the utterances.
Whether the petitioners' awareness of the complainant's caste can be inferred from the allegations.
Whether the impugned summoning order under Section 3(x) of the Act should be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jogender Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 100Referred¶20
Chaman Lal Goyal Vs. Kaur Singh 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 377Referred¶20
Dr. Satish Kumar Thukral Vs. Prem 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 491Referred¶20
Rajinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 245Referred¶20
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Gulab Singh & Ors.
Balbir Kaur & Anr.
Arvind Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
