Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1430 (PNJ)

Rajinder Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2002-12-25

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. Rajinder Kumar and Satish Kumar, petitioners-accused seek quashing of complaint dated 11.7.2000 (Annexure P-1) filed under Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) and under Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code filed by Mohinder, complainant- respondent No. 2 which is pending in the Court of Special Judge, Kaithal. 2. The circumstances which led to the filing of complaint at the behest of Mohinder, complainant need to be noticed briefly. The complainant was employed as Agricultural Labourer to work in the fields of Rajinder Kumar, accused No. 1 in the year 1996. It was agreed between the parties that Rs. 1500/- per month would be paid as wages to the complainant. Wife of the complainant also used to do labour work in the fields of petitioner-accused No. 1 on daily wages. Accused No. 1 had obtained thumb impression of the complainant and his wife, Raj Pati alias Rajo, on blank papers in the Bahi kept by him as well as on some printed papers. Accused No. 1 did not pay wages to the complainant for the last three years despite repeated demands made by him. On 8.7.2000, the complainant along with his wife and father-in- law, Manphool went to the fields of accused No. 1, where Satish Kumar, accused No. 2 was also present. When accused No. 1 was asked to pay the wages of the complainant, he uttered the words "Sale Dedh Chamer Ne Karna Dharna Kuch Nahin Aur Gya Paise Mangnee Chal Bhag Ja Yahan Se Nahin To Tractor Neeche De Dunga." Thereafter wife of the complainant also asked accused No. 1 to settle her account but he paid no heed to her request. At this stage accused No. 2 stated to the complainant "Mere Sale Gittal Ko Itenee Joot Marange Ke Sara Hissab Kitab Bhool Jayega". After that both the accused started beating the complainant by giving him kicks and fist blow. When Manphool tried to rescue him, he too was slapped by the accused. At this stage accused No. 2 stated to the complainant "Mere Sale Gittal Ko Itenee Joot Marange Ke Sara Hissab Kitab Bhool Jayega". After that both the accused started beating the complainant by giving him kicks and fist blow. When Manphool tried to rescue him, he too was slapped by the accused. When they were leaving that place, accused No. 1 again threatened them saying "Mera Sale Chamar Ke Dubara Shakal Na Dhakana Nahin To Jinda Nahin Jane Dunga." On the same day i.e. 8.7.2000, the complainant with his wife and father-in-law went to the Police Station and lodged the report but no action was taken by the Police. On 9.2.2000, the complainant, his wife and father-in-law went to the residence of the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal and tried to submit an application for taking action against accused Nos. 1 and 2 but his application was not received. It is under these circumstances the complaint came to be filed. In support of the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant had examined himself as CW-1 and also examined his father-in-law, Manphool as CW-2 and his wife, Raj Pati as CW-3 in the preliminary evidence led by him. In addition postal receipts Ex.CW-1/A and Ex.CW/1-B were also placed on record. Taking into consideration the evidence led by the complainant, the accused were ordered to be summoned under Sections 323 and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(x) of the Act. Thereafter the present petition was filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the aforesaid complaint and the summoning order dated 3.1.2001 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla, District Kaithal. 3. In pursuance to the notice detailed reply had been filed by respondent No. 1 wherein stand taken on behalf of the complainant in the complaint had been supported. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner. I heard State counsel as well as counsel representing respondent No. 2-complainant at length. 4. The grounds taken in the petition on the basis of which quashing of summoning order has been sought has been taken into consideration. It has been pleaded therein that Mohinder, complainant had been working as Labourer with Rajinder Kumar, petitioner arrayed as accused No. 1, since 1982 and accusant used to take money as advance whenever it was needed by him. On 31.5.2000, the complainant refused to work with the petitioner and Panchayat was convened. It has been pleaded therein that Mohinder, complainant had been working as Labourer with Rajinder Kumar, petitioner arrayed as accused No. 1, since 1982 and accusant used to take money as advance whenever it was needed by him. On 31.5.2000, the complainant refused to work with the petitioner and Panchayat was convened. The accounts were settled and a sum of Rs. 28,000/- was found as payable by the complainant to petitioner No. 1. At that time the complainant had assured petitioner No. 1 that he would pay the amount in instalments by doing the work somewhere else. Instead of honouring the settlement arrived at between the parties on 11.7.2000, a false complaint was filed by him on the allegations made in the complaint, though factually no such incident had occurred and no beating whatsoever was given to the complainant, his wife and his father-in-law. Additionally, it was stated that taking the allegations at their face value offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is not disclosed. Even otherwise, offence is not alleged to have been committed within a public view because the incident had taken place in the fields of the petitioner which is a private place and not a public place. 5. While appreciating the respective stands taken by the parties, the first and foremost question to be examined is whether the allegations levelled against the petitioners-accused stated in the complaint bring the case within the ambit of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act or not. This is so because the inherent powers can be exercised by this Court to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. 6. Coming to the facts of the present case, the utterances attributed to the petitioners have been noticed in detail earlier. While narrating this incident, it has nowhere been mentioned in the complaint by the complainant that the petitioners were aware that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste. Merely because the complainant had been employed with the petitioner and his wife had worked with him in his fields per se is no ground to draw an inference in this regard. It is again not spelled out from the allegations made in the complaint that the petitioners-accused were conscious of the fact that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste at the time the alleged incident had occurred. It is again not spelled out from the allegations made in the complaint that the petitioners-accused were conscious of the fact that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste at the time the alleged incident had occurred. In the given circumstances of the case, even if the utterances are taken at their face value, the same do not constitute an offence as the alleged incident had taken place in the fields of accused No. 1, which admittedly is not a public place. Nobody except the complainant, his wife and father-in-law were present at that time. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioners-accused in respect of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act as such is not warranted from the facts brought on record and for that reason the proceedings on the basis of the complaint in this regard cannot be sustained. It is made clear that if at any subsequent stage the complainant is able to bring out the case within the ambit of the aforesaid provision, the Court can follow the necessary course available to it in accordance with law. 7. Coming to the allegations of threat to kill given to the complainant and beating given to him, his wife and father-in-law, the evidence led by the complainant prima facie link the accused with this crime. At this stage the accusations made in this regard as such cannot be ignored and the proceedings in relation to these allegations have to continue against the petitioners- accused before the competent Court. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above.