Er. Karnail Singh Mann and Another vs Pritam Singh

Gurdev Singh, J.—This petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court has been filed by Karnail Singh and Hardip Singh - petitioners/accused for the quashing of complaint dated 14.3.2005 (Annexure P-1) filed against them by Pritam Singh-respondent/complainant, Summoning Order dated 3.2.2007 (Annexure P-5) and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, including the order dated 17.8.2009 Ex. P-6 and charge-sheet Ex. P-7.

Petitioners have pleaded in this petition that in the performance of their official duties as Senior Executive Engineer and SDE Enforcement PSEB, respectively, they inspected the premises of M/s Nanak Rice Mills Bharu on 3.3.2005 and it was found that there was tampering with the meter and theft of electric energy was committed for which a sum of Rs. 5,94,159/ was imposed as penalty. On account of that fact, the owner of said Rice Mill; namely, Dinesh Kumar got filed the above said complaint u/s 323/34 IPC and 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') against them from his servants, on false allegations with a mala fide intention to harass them and to wreck vengeance. No such offence is made out from the contents of that complaint. There is no evidence on the record that they knew that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste category. There was no occasion to use those words which may constitute the offence under the said Section. There are no averments in the complaint that they intentionally insulted or intimidated the complainant with an intention to humiliate as a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in any place with the public view.

Notice of the petitioner was given to the respondent/complainant, who filed his reply to the same. He pleaded therein that he was working as Chowkidar in the said Rice Mill and in that capacity he stopped the petitioners from entering the premises and on that account he was abused by them in his caste. He filed a complaint on his own and not at the instance of the owner of the Rice Mill. It is very much clear from the reading of the complaint and the statements of the witnesses that petitioners knew that he belongs to scheduled caste category and that they intentionally uttered words regarding his caste, thereby committing the said offences.

I have heard learned Counsel for both the sides.

It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that there is no averment in the complaint that the petitioners had the knowledge that the respondent belongs to the caste declared as scheduled caste in the State of Punjab or that any such offence was committed in the public view. The complainant examined himself and the witnesses during the preliminary evidence and even at that time no such evidence was produced regarding this fact. No offence under the Act is made out from the complaint or the preliminary evidence and as such the complaint, summoning order and all the consequent proceedings are liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, it has been contended by learned Counsel for the respondent that from the contents of the complaint, it can easily be concluded that the petitioner had the knowledge that the respondent belongs to scheduled caste and that the offence was committed by them in the public view. There is no ground for quashing the complaint, summoning order and the consequent proceedings.

I have gone through the contents of the complaint and the statements of the complainant and the witnesses, which were recorded in the preliminary evidence, with the help of counsel for the parties. No such fact has been stated in the complaint of the complainant on the basis of which it can be said that the petitioners had the knowledge that the respondent belongs to a caste which has been declared as a scheduled caste in the notification issued by the Punjab State. Similarly the complainant and his witnesses did not depose about that fact while making their statements in the Court. Respondent himself contended in his complaint that he and the petitioners were not known to each other previously and they never visited the premises of M/s Rice Mill. The position was similar in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P and Ors. 2008(4) RCR (Crl) 173 and Dr. Satish Kumar Thukral v. Prem 2006(4) RCR (Crl) 491. It was held therein that if the accused had no knowledge about the caste, no such offence u/s 3(i)(x) of the Act is made out.

Therefore, the complaint, summoning order and all the subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed so far as the offence u/s 3(i)(x) of the Act is concerned. These are quashed accordingly. It is also the case of the respondent in the complainant that he was assaulted by the petitioners and he was given slaps by them. Evidence in that respect was also produced, when the complainant produced as preliminary evidence before the Magistrate.

Offence u/s 323/34 is made out from the contents of the complaint. Therefore, no ground is made out for quashing the complaint and all the subsequent proceedings, so far as that offence is concerned.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.