JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J. :- The petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 115 of 2000 is the complainant and he has assailed part of the order dated 6.9.1999 passed by Sessions Judge (exercising the powers of Special Judge under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called the Act), Kangra at Dharamsala. whereby the Special . Judge has refused to issue notice to the all respondents-accused in the complainant 1 filed by him under Section 3 of the Act and under Section 323 I.P.C. except I respondent- accused No.l. On the other hand, the petitioner in Criminal RevisionNo. 107 of 1999 is one of the accused, who has assailed part of the same order dated 6.9.1999 whereby he has been summoned in the said complainant under Section 3 of the Act and Section 323 I.P.C. 2. Te impugned order in both the petitions is as under: "6.9.99. Present: complainant in person. On appraisal of evidence, it is clear that prima facie case only i made out against R.P. Jaswal-respondent No.l under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, as well as under Section 323 1PC. No case is made out against other accused persons and as such respondent No. 1 be only summoned on filing of list of witnesses, PF and copies of complainant, if not already filed, within four days for 15.11.1999." 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 8.4.19^9 the complainant filed a private complainant under Section 3 (1 )(viii)(ix)&(x) of the Act against the accused persons that on 26.9.1998 at 7.30 PM he was going towards Votwali Bazar and met accused R.P. Jaswal, the then Sub Inspector in Police Station, Dharamsala, who without any rhyme or reason started calling him Mochi and Chamar in the presence of general public and also man handled him. In meantime, mobile police van had also reached on the spot carrying police officials consisting of other accused, who at the instance of accused R.P. Jaswal started beating the complainant mercilessly with shoes and Dandas and complainant "Mochi Chamar Ko Jooton Se Maro". They continued beating the complainant for about 15 minutes as a result of which he sustained injujries on his person and became unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he found himself in the hospital. They continued beating the complainant for about 15 minutes as a result of which he sustained injujries on his person and became unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he found himself in the hospital. From the hospital the complainant was taken to police station and released only after about 300 persons from the locality protested against his wrong detention and beating. It is also stated in the complainant that in order to shroud their high handedness and illegal acts the accused R.P. Jaswal got registered a false case FIR No.229 of 1998 under Sections 353 and 510 I.P.C. against the complainant. According to the complainant, the present incident was the result of the previous druge which the police was nursing against the employees of State Bank of India, Dharamsala and he was one of them. On an earlier occasion which had taken place about 4-5 ago, months there was exchange of hot words between the police officials and the complainant who was a pillion rider on the scooter at the relevant time. 4. In support of his complainant, the complainant has appeared himself as CW-1 and produced Ghambir Singh, CW-2 and Girdhari Lal, CW-3. In his statement the complainant has given a different version that on 26.9.1998 at about 7.30 PM or 8.00 PM when he was going to his house from Bazar some persons including accused R.P. Jaswal and a black complexioned man started giving beatings to him because he had struck with shoulder of one person. In the meantime, a police van came and some police men alighted from that van and gave him kicks and danda blows as a result of which e became unconscious. While giving beatings, all of them were hurling filthy abuses and were stating that "Chura chamar Jute MaraSaale Ko". Thereafter first the comp Lalnant was taken to hospital and then to the police station and was released only when a crowd of about 250 people had gathered outside the police station and raised slogans. The complainant has also reitereated the earlier incident as a result of which he remained on bed for seven days and could not lodge the complainant He has admitted that police people had also registered a case against him for his mis-behaviour with him. 5. The complainant has also reitereated the earlier incident as a result of which he remained on bed for seven days and could not lodge the complainant He has admitted that police people had also registered a case against him for his mis-behaviour with him. 5. Ghambir Singh, CW-2, who knew the complainant, has also stated that he saw accused R.P. Jaswal giving beatings to the complainant on 26th or 27th September, 1998 at about 7.00 PM or 8.00 PM in the Bazar who was later joined by 6-7 police persons, who had come in a van and all of them were hurling abuses and proc Lalming "Maro Chamar Ko". He has further stated that as a result of beating, the comp Lalnant had become unconscious and was taken to the hospital and thereafter to the police station from where he was released only after about 250 persons from the Bazar reached the police station and a compromise was arrived at between the comp Lalnant and the police officials as learnt by him. 6. Girdhari Lal, CW-3, has only stated that on 26.9.1998 at about 7.30 PM or 8.00 PM he saw 7-8 police persons taking the complainant in a police van while he was going to his home after closing his shop. The complainant also tendered in evidence a copy of the challan mark A and Advocate(s) copy of representation mark B and closed his preliminary evidence. It was on the basis of this material the special Judge has passed the dated 6.9.1999 summoning the accused R.P. Jaswal and refused to summon the other accused persons. 7. The question which arises in both the petitions is whether in the facts and circumstances on record the special Judge was not justified in passing the impugned order and should this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction or inherent powers interfere with it? 8. Accused R.P. Jaswal while assailing the impugned order has-prayed for quashing the complainant by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. while the complainant has prayed for directing the Special Judge to summon the other accused also. 9. In order to find out the scope of exercise of revisionaPpowers tor quashing the summoning order or exercise of inherent powers for quashing the. comp Lalnt or F.I.R this Court would refer to some judgments of the Supreme Court. 10. In State of Haryana & Ors. 9. In order to find out the scope of exercise of revisionaPpowers tor quashing the summoning order or exercise of inherent powers for quashing the. comp Lalnt or F.I.R this Court would refer to some judgments of the Supreme Court. 10. In State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. AIR 1992 SC 604, in para 8 of the judgment the learned Judges of the Supreme court have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such powers could be exercised either to prevent abuse of theprocess of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice:- "....1. Where the allegations made in First Information Report or the comp Lalnt even if they are taken at their fate value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any. offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the first Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying ^n investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complainant and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complainant are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or the concerned Act, providing officious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or the concerned Act, providing officious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with the ulterior motive for wracking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 11. In ChandDhawan v. Jawahar Lal & Ors., AIR SC 1379, the above principles have been reiterated by the leaded Judges of the Supreme court that, "the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction of quashing a criminal proceeding only when the allegations made in the complainant do not constitute an offence or that the exercise of the power is necessary either to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. No inflexible guidelines or rigid formula can be set out and it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case wherein such power should be exercised. When the allegations in the complainant prima facie constitute the offence against any or all of the respondents in the absence of materials on record to show that the continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the Court or would defeat the ends of justice, the High Court would not be justified in quashing the complainant (Emphasis supplied) 12. The above principles have further been reiterated by the Supreme court in its later decisions sugb-atrRupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr. 1995(6) SCC 194, State of Orissa v. Bansidhar Singh 1996 (2) SCC 194, P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar, 1969 (9) SCC 1, State of Kerala & &rs. v. O.C. Kuttan & Ors. 1992 (2) SCC 651, Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCTof Delhi & Ors., 1999(3) SCC 259 and HridayaRanjan Prasad Verma & Ors v. State of Bihar & Anr. 2000(4) SCC 168. 13. In order find out whether in the present case the complainant and the preliminary evidence disclose the ingredients to the alleged offence under the Act, this Court will refer to Section 3(l)(viir), (ix) and (x). These are: 3. 2000(4) SCC 168. 13. In order find out whether in the present case the complainant and the preliminary evidence disclose the ingredients to the alleged offence under the Act, this Court will refer to Section 3(l)(viir), (ix) and (x). These are: 3. Punishments for offences of offences of atrocities: - (1) whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe :-( I) to (vii) xxx xxx xxx xxx (viii) institutes false, malicious or vexatious suit or criminal or other legal proceedings against a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe; (ix) gives any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humilitate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a terms which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine." 14. A perusal of the above provisions shows that Section 3(1) (viii) & (ix) are not attracted at all in the present case. So far the provision of Section 3 (1) (x) is concerned, in order to attract this provision it is to be seen whether there is any allegation in the complainant or in the preliminary evidence that the accused persons were aware of the fact that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste and they used the words Mochi or Chamar while addressing him with intent to insult or intimidate with intent to humiliate him, in the absece of which the answer would be in the negative. Neither in the complainant nor in the preliminary evidence there is a whisper that the accused persons including accused R.P. Jaswal individually knew the complainant and also that he belonged to Mochi or Chamar caste, as such they could not have mens rea to insult or intimidate with intent to humiliate the complainant by calling him Mochi or Chamar. For taking this view this court finds support from the judgment in Chandra Poojari v. State of Karnataka, 1998 CRI.L.J.53. 15. For taking this view this court finds support from the judgment in Chandra Poojari v. State of Karnataka, 1998 CRI.L.J.53. 15. The complainant himself has alleged that the reason which led to the complainant of incident was that the police officials of the Police Station, Dharamsala, were nursing grudge against the employees the employees of State Bank of India, Dharamsala, and he was one of them ahd also because there was an exchange of hot words between him and some police officials of police Station, Dharamsala about 4-5 months ago. On the Hasis of these allegations it cannot be said that the accused persons had any reason to call the complainant Mochi or Chamar with intent to insult or intimidate in order to humiliate him. Moreover, neither in the complainant nor in the preliminary evidence there is any explanation why the complainant filed the complainant after about six and half months. Admittedly, for the incident in question a criminal case F.I.R. No.229 of 1998 under Sections 353 and 510 IPC was registered against the complainant for which challan was also filed on 15.1.1999 and the complainant was summoned for 29.1.1999. Thereafter, the complainant filed on 8.4.1999 which is apparently a counter blast. 16. In the above facts and circumstances on record, this court is of the view that it is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court for the reasons that, firstly, ingredients of Seciton 3(1) (x) of the Act are not made out from the complainant and the preliminary evidence, secondly, there is inordinate delay in filing the complainant without any explanation and, thirdly, the filing of complainant is a counter blast and not j bonafide. 17. Therefore, the Criminal Revision No. 107 of 1999 is allowed and the Criminal Revision No.115 of 2000 is dismissed as a result of which the impugned order dated 6.9.1999 is set aside and the proceedings in the private complainant under Section 3(1) (viii)(ix)(x) of the Act as well as under Section 3-23 I.P.c. are quashed. 17. Therefore, the Criminal Revision No. 107 of 1999 is allowed and the Criminal Revision No.115 of 2000 is dismissed as a result of which the impugned order dated 6.9.1999 is set aside and the proceedings in the private complainant under Section 3(1) (viii)(ix)(x) of the Act as well as under Section 3-23 I.P.c. are quashed. No doubt, the ingredients of Section 323 I.P.C. are made out from the comp Lal complainant and the preliminary evidence but in view of the fact that the incident has taken place as far back as on 26.9.1998, it will not be fair and just to send the complainant to a Magistrate for trial under Section 323 I.P.C. Both these petitions are disposed of in the above terms.