Rana Shergil and Others vs Sukhwinder Kaur

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of complaint No. 24 dated 04.04.2009, registered under Sections 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and summoning order dated 28.02.2013 (Annexure P-2) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order dated 28.02.2013, whereby the petitioners were ordered to be summoned to face trial, is illegal and passed in a arbitrary manner. The petitioner No. 1 being the sarpanch of the village and petitioner No. 2 being his nephew has been falsely roped in the present case. There is no specific allegation against the petitioners in the said complaint that they uttered derogatory words or called the respondent/complainant by her caste in order to humiliate and insult her. The learned counsel cites Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. and Others, and Dr. Onkar Chander Jagpal and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another, 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 932.

The learned amicus curiae submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioners in the complaint and the trial Court has rightly summoned them to face the trial. The petitioners being influential persons used derogatory words against the complainant and other co-villagers, which is duly proved with the testimonies of CW-1-complainant, CW-2 Ajaib Kaur and CW-3 Rachna. The learned counsel cites Swaran Singh and Others Vs. State through Standing Counsel and Another, , Ashabai Machindra Adhagale Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, , State of Orissa and Another Vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, and Amar Nath and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, .

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone the record file carefully with their able assistance.

Perusal of the complaint (Annexure P-1) would reveal that there are specific allegations against the petitioners leveled by the respondent, who behave in rude manner, called every one ''Churi Chamar''. Respondent herself stepped into witness box as CW-1 to prove her complaint. Further the testimonies of co-villagers i.e. CW 2 Ajaib Kaur and CW-3, Rachna also proved the case of the prosecution. The trial Court after finding sufficient material on record, has rightly summoned the petitioners to face the trial for the commission of above said offence. At this stage, it cannot be said that no case is made out against the petitioner under the SC/ST Act. The case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable on facts and will not apply in the present case. Therefore, finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 28.02.2013 (Annexure P-2), the same is affirmed and the instant petition is dismissed as such.