Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3461 (PNJ)

Manish Manglani v. Santokh Ram

2006-09-07

M.M.AGGARWAL

body2006
JUDGMENT M.M. AGGARWAL, J. 1. This is petition for quashing of complaint and all consequential proceedings. 2. On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that as per Section 3 (1) of the Act, it was mandatory for the complainant to plead and allege in the complaint that the accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes and in this case, this was not pleaded and as such the complaint for the offence under Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of the Atrocities) Act, 1989 was not maintainable. 3. A judgment of Bombay High Court reported in Manohar M. Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 (1) RCR (Criminal) 537 had been relied. 4. In the complaint copy Annexure P-1 filed by Santokh Ram, respondent No.1 as against the petitioners, it was pleaded in para No.1 of the complaint that the complaintant was Adharmi by caste, which had been declared as Scheduled Caste within the meaning of Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It had been pleaded that accused No. 1 Bilkul Bhi Akal Nahin Hai” whereas accused No. 2 had shouted and abused complainant like this “Inhan Kutiyan Charmaran Nu Kee Pata England Kee Hundi Hai”. It had also been pleaded that accused knew that complainant was Adharmi by caste. 5. Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is as under: 3 (1) (x)- Punishment for offences of atrocities- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribes:- (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; 6. Counsel for the respondent-complainant had argued that the starting lines of Section 3(1) of the Act are in the negative form and it has not been pleaded by the petitioners-accused that they were members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and in fact they are not members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. 7. Counsel for the petitioner had relied on judgments reported in M.A. Kuttappan v. E Krishnan Nayanar and Anr (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 231, Vidyadharam v. State of Kerala 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) SC 28 and Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 116. 8. 7. Counsel for the petitioner had relied on judgments reported in M.A. Kuttappan v. E Krishnan Nayanar and Anr (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 231, Vidyadharam v. State of Kerala 2004(1) RCR (Criminal) SC 28 and Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 116. 8. After going through the facts of the case, I am of the view that merely because it was not pleaded in the complaint that accused were not members of Scheduled Castes, will not be sufficient to throw away the complaint at this stage. 9. I do not find any good ground to interfere at this stage.