Dismissed

Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Jan 2010CRM-M/34472/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's petition seeking quashing of an order accepting a cancellation report in a caste atrocity case. The court upheld the lower court's view that the complaint lacked necessary averments regarding the accused's knowledge of the complainants' caste status, relying on precedent.

What did the court decide?

None, as the petition seeking quashing of the order was dismissed.

Gurdev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

**Crl. Misc. No. 34472-M of 2009 Date of Decision: 8.1.2010 *****

Gurdev Singh

.. Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab & Ors.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,

¶10

Present:Mr. G.S. Nahel, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

ARVIND KUMAR, J.

¶12

The petitioner is aggrieved with order dated 8.4.2009 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Barnala vide which the cancellation report submitted in case FIR No.90 dated 5.8.2006, registered against respondents No.2 to 4 under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity), has been accepted.

¶13

The said FIR was got registered by the petitioner and one Lakhbir Singh wherein it was alleged by them that they are Ramdasia by caste, which has been declared as Scheduled Caste by the Government. The accused i.e. respondents No.2 to 4, since were annoyed with them on account of being allotted plots by the Government, on 22.12.2005, armed with weapons came to the petitioner, Lakhbir Singh when they were present at bus stand Channo and hurled abuses in the name of their caste and criminally intimidated them, in the presence of Gurnam Singh and Gurmail Singh.

¶14

On these broad allegations the impugned FIR was registered. Thereafter, on an application filed by the accused regarding their false implication, the matter was referred to the Committee, comprising of Superintendent of Police (Security and Traffic), Sangrur, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sangrur and Station House Officer of Police

¶15

¶16

Station Ahmedgarh, to conduct an enquiry. The Committee, on enquiry, found the allegations as false and recommended cancellation report in the matter, which, as said above, has been accepted by the Court vide order dated 8.4.2009, leading to the filing of the instant petition seeking quashing of the said order.

¶17

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the enquiry, which has been made basis for recommendation of the cancellation report, the petitioner has not been joined deliberately and the Committee, in connivance with the accused, submitted the cancellation report in the matter and hence the Court below has wrongly relied upon the same while accepting the cancellation report. There is no merit in the said contention. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner and Lakhbir Singh were summoned by the Committee to join the enquiry on 28.12.2006 but they refused to make any statement, rather stated that they will produce the witnesses on 30.12.2006. But on that date, as is apparent from the impugned order, neither the complainants or any witness appeared before the Committee. It has not been shown by learned counsel for the petitioner that at that relevant time, the petitioner or Lakhbir Singh raised any objection about the manner and conduct of the enquiry or the Members of the Committee. They refrain from joining the enquiry for the reasons best known to them. The things do not rest here. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that it is not the recommendations of the Committee, which has been made the basis of acceptance of the cancellation report, but the learned Court below also took into consideration the allegations in the complaint and finding the essential ingredients of offence under the Act, i.e. the complaint being silent with regard to the caste of the accused and the fact as to whether the accused were having the knowledge that the complainants belong to Scheduled Castes, conspicuously missing, accepted the same, while relying upon the law laid down by this Court in the case of Chaman Lal Goyal Vs. Kaur Singh 2008(1) Recent Criminal Reports 377 and Dr. Satish Kumar Thukral Vs. Prem 2006(4) RCR (Crl.) 491. This Court is in total agreement with the view taken by the learned Court below. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in the latest case of Jogender Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and another 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 100, wherein finding no averment in the complaint that

¶18

¶19

the accused had knowledge that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste, as is the situation in the case in hand, this Court quashed the criminal proceedings.

¶20

In view of the discussed above, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the court below. The petition, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed in limine.

¶21

(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE

¶22

January 8,2010 Jiten

Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurdhian Singh Vs Karnail Singh

Yogesh Kumar Vs Narender Kumar Tayagi and Anr.

Prem Chand Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ram Kumar Bodla Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Krishan Gopal Vs the State of Haryana

Chander Rekha Vs State of Haryana and Ors.