Partly allowed

Gurdit Singh & Another v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Nov 2011CRM-M/6215/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court held that a petitioner belonging to the Scheduled Caste could not be prosecuted under Section 3 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 as the complaint lacked the essential ingredient of the accused knowing the victim's caste and intending humiliation. The court allowed the petition to the extent of setting aside summoning for Se

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 08.07.2009 set aside regarding Section 3 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989; summoning for offences under Sections 427, 506, and 34 IPC maintained.

Gurdit Singh & Another Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CRM No. M-6215 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CRM No. M-6215 of 2010

¶5

Date of Decision :November 18, 2011

¶6

Gurdit Singh s/o S. Satnam Singh and another

¶7

.... PETITIONERS

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Punjab and another

¶10

..... RESPONDENTS

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶12

¶13

Present : Mr. Pardeep Rajput, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶14

Mr. G.S.Brar, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 1.

¶15

None for respondent No. 2.

¶16

¶17

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

¶18

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 .

¶19

CRM No. M-6215 of 2010

¶20

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the records of the case.

¶25

Petitioner No. 1 cannot be prosecuted under the Act, 1989 for the reason that he belongs to the scheduled caste himself, which is

¶26

CRM No. M-6215 of 2010

¶27

¶28

apparent from the Scheduled Caste Certificate dated 25.10.2001 attached with the petition as Annexure P-3.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

Any observations made herein above shall have no effect on the merits of the case before the trial Court.

¶33

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE

¶34

November 18, 2011 pj

Gurdit Singh & Another v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdit Singh & Another v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurbax Singh Vs Raghu Nath

Indraj & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Gurdial Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ramesh Lal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Tirath Singh Chief Executive Officer and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Vijay Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs Chhida Mal