Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1215 (PNJ)

V. K. Malhotra, G. R. Nagar v. G. R. Nagar

2001-10-30

V.M.JAIN

body2001
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused petitioner, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint, copy Annexure P3 and the summoning order dated 28.3.2000, copy Annexure P4, passed by the learned Magistrate, ordering the summoning of the accused petitioner under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and under Section 506 IPC and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon, on the complaint filed by complainant-respondent No. 1 G.R. Nagar. 2. It was alleged in the petition that the petitioner was working as Manager of the Punjab National Bank, Kharar Alipur, District Hisar and has been summoned as an accused for the offences under Section 3 of the Act and under Section 506 IPC, in the criminal complaint filed by complainant respondent G.R. Nagar. It was alleged that a complaint was lodged to the Regional Manager of the Punjab National Bank in the year 1997 in which it was mentioned that one Dhoop Singh, a customer, had levelled certain charges against the complainant-respondent G.R. Nagar and it was also alleged in the said complaint that accused petitioner V.K. Malhotra had also informed about some incidents about the working of the said Branch of the Bank. It was alleged that on receipt of the said complaint, the Regional Manager, vide letter dated 1.7.1997, had requested the Lead District Manager to hold an inquiry in the said complaint. It was alleged that after visiting the Branch Office, and recording evidence and completing the inquiry, the Lead District Manager, submitted his report that the act of G.R. Nagar, levelling allegations against present petitioner, were false. It was alleged that surprisingly, complainant respondent G.R. Nagar instituted the present complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and under Sections 467, 468, 506 IPC against the accused petitioner. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused petitioner got annoyed with the complainant respondent No. 1 on 17.6.1997 and started abusing him in the presence of the customers and the staff and that again on 21.6.1997, the accused petitioner insulted the complainant respondent No. 1. In the complainant, it was alleged that the complainant had gone to the police station to lodge the report but no action was taken by the police, whereupon complainant filed criminal complaint before the Special Court, copy Annexure P3. In the complainant, it was alleged that the complainant had gone to the police station to lodge the report but no action was taken by the police, whereupon complainant filed criminal complaint before the Special Court, copy Annexure P3. It was further alleged in the present petition that after recording preliminary evidence in the form of statement of complainant as CW1 and statement of Rohtas as CW2, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, vide order dated 28.3.2000, copy Annexure P4, found that no case was made out for ordering summoning of the accused petitioner under Section 4 of the Act and under Sections 467, 468 IPC, but ordered the summoning of accused petitioner under Section 3 of the said Act and under Section 506 IPC. It was alleged that the criminal complaint, copy Annexure P3, summoning order dated 28.3.2000, copy Annexure P4 and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon are liable to be quashed being abuse of the process of the court. It was alleged that no offence under Section 3 of the Act was mae out, even prima facie, inasmuch as there was no allegation in the complaint that the accused petitioner had intentionally insulted the complainant being a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It was further alleged that similarly, no offence under Section 506 IPC was made out. It was accordingly prayed that the petition be allowed and the criminal complaint and the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate be quashed. 3. The complainant respondent filed written statement, controverting the allegations contained in the petition and alleged that the learned Magistrate had rightly ordered the summoning of the accused petitioner under Section 3 of the Act and under Section 506 IPC. It was further alleged that the complaint before the Special Court (Additional Sessions Judge), Hisar was transferred vide order dated 24.10.1998 to the Judicial Magistrate in view of the law laid down by the this Court, in Crl.M. No. 13012-M of 1996 titled as Mrs. Jyoti Arora v. State of Haryana and others. It was alleged that the accused had insulted the complainant, who was a member of the scheduled caste and as such the accused had committed the offence under Section 3 of the Act. 4. Subsequently, complainant respondent No. 1 also submitted written arguments dated 4.5.2001 and the same were taken on record. 5. It was alleged that the accused had insulted the complainant, who was a member of the scheduled caste and as such the accused had committed the offence under Section 3 of the Act. 4. Subsequently, complainant respondent No. 1 also submitted written arguments dated 4.5.2001 and the same were taken on record. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and complainant respondent No. 1 in person and have gone through the record carefully. 6. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner has submitted before me that there is nothing on the record to show that the complainant respondent No. 1 made any effort to get a case registered with the police, as required under Rule 5 of the Act. It was submitted that the complainant had made vague allegations in the complaint in this regard. Secondly, it was submitted that an offence under Section 3 of the Act would be made out only if there is an allegation that the accused had intentionally insulted or intimidated a member of the scheduled caste. It was submitted that there is nothing on the record to show that the accused petitioner knew that the complainant was a member of the scheduled caste nor there is anything on the record to show that the accused petitioner had intentionally insulted or intimated the complainant knowing that he was a member of the scheduled caste. 7. However, I find no force in these submissions of the learned counsel for the accused petitioner. 8. Annexure P3 is the copy of the complaint filed by complainant respondent No. 1 before the Special Court (which was later on transferred to the court of Magistrate). In the said complaint, it was alleged that accused V.K. Malhotra was the Manager of the Kharar Alipur Branch of the Punjab National Bank, whereas the complainant respondent G.R. Nagar was working as Clerk/Cashier in the said Branch of the Punjab National Bank and was the seniormost person in the said Branch (after the Manager) and was working and discharging his duties of the second man in the said branch. It was alleged in para 4 of the complaint that the accused had insulted the complainant with the intent to cause injury, insult to the complainant, who is a Dhanak by caste which is declared a scheduled caste. It was alleged in para 4 of the complaint that the accused had insulted the complainant with the intent to cause injury, insult to the complainant, who is a Dhanak by caste which is declared a scheduled caste. It was further alleged that the accused had insulted and intimidated the complainant knowing well that the complainant belongs to Dhanak/scheduled caste. The complainant had levelled allegations against the accused petitioner with regard to the two incidents, one dated 17.6.1997 and the other dated 21.6.1997. It was further alleged that the accused had given threat to the complainant that he will kill the complainant. It was further alleged that the said incidents were witnessed by Rohtash etc. on 17.6.1997 and Daya Nand on 21.6.1997. It was further alleged in the said complaint (para 9) that the complainant had gone to PS Sadar Hisar for getting the case registered against the accused, but the accused being influential person, the police did not register any case and took no action against the accused. 9. From the allegations made in the criminal complaint, copy Annexure P3, prima facie, it could not be said that any of the ingredients of Section 3 of the Act were missing in this case nor could it be said that the learned Magistrate committed any illegality or irregularity in ordering the summoning of the petitioner as accused, for the offence under Section 3 of the Act and under Section 506 IPC. 10. There is nothing to indicate in Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, that lodging of the FIR for the offences under the said Act is a must. The provisions of Rule 5 of the said Rules are para materia to the provisions of Section 154 Cr.PC, in which it is provided that if the SHO does not register an FIR, the complainant is competent to approach the SP concerned in this regard, However, in the Criminal Procedure Code, there is no bar that the complainant cannot approach the court directly Section 190 Cr.PC by filing a criminal complaint. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, it could not be said that the criminal complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be quashed merely on the ground that there is no solid proof to show that the complainant had approached the police for the registration of the FIR or that since the police had failed to register the FIR, the complainant had filed the complaint. 11. In view of my detailed discussion above, in my opinion, no case for quashment of the criminal complaint or the summoning order and subsequent proceedings taken thereon is made out, on the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this petition the same is hereby dismissed. 13. Since the proceedings before the trial court were stayed by this court, while issuing notice of motion to respondent No. 1, accused petitioner through his counsel is directed to appear before the trial Magistrate on 10.12.2001. Complainant, respondent No. 1 shall also appear before the learned trial Magistrate on the said date. Office is directed to inform the complainant- respondent No. 1 (who had appeared in person) about the result of the case and also that he has to appear before the trial Magistrate on 10.12.2001 for further proceedings in accordance with law. 14. Since the matter is yet to be decided by the court on the merits of the case, it is directed that nothing stated above shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.