Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 209 (PNJ)

Rakesh Kumar v. Reena

2013-02-18

SABINA

body2013
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal complaint No.16 dated 28.2.2006 under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act for short) and Sections 452, 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) (Annexure P-2) as well as order dated 6.7.2012 (Annexure P-4). 2. Respondent No.1 has filed the complaint (Annexure P-2) against the petitioners alleging therein that she belonged to Ravidasia caste. She had got married to Vikram Kumar, who belongs to Arora Caste. Petitioners are the relatives of Vikram Kumar. Petitioners were opposed to the marriage of the complainant with Vikram Kumar. Complainant was residing with her husband in a portion of the house, whereas, in the remaining portion of the house, petitioners No.1 and 2 were residing with their family. The complainant was working as a teacher in Anganwari and she was abused by petitioners No.1 and 2 with regard to her caste. On 14.2.2006, complainant moved an application before the police for taking action against petitioners No.1 and 2. Thereafter, all the petitioners came to the house of the complainant under the influence of liquor at 6.30 P.M. and abused her in the name of her caste. Petitioners slapped the complainant and misbehaved with her. When the complainant raised alarm, the petitioner fled away from the spot. Complainant moved an application before the police but no action was taken on the said application. Hence, the complaint was filed by the complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complaint in question had been lodged as civil litigation was pending between the father-in-law of the complainant and petitioners No.1 and 2. The complaint moved by the complainant had been duly investigated by the police and the allegations levelled in the application were found to be false. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that all the accused, in connivance with each other, had entered her house and had slapped her and had abused her in the name of her caste. Respondent No.1 had led evidence in support of her case and the petitioners were liable to face the trial. 5. Respondent No.1 had led evidence in support of her case and the petitioners were liable to face the trial. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 6. In the present case, the husband of the complainant is closely related to the petitioners. Now the complainant is member of the family of the petitioners. The complaint moved by the petitioners was duly inquired by the police. Annexure P-1 is the inquiry report in this regard. A perusal of the said inquiry report reveals that during investigation, it was found that all the three families were residing in different portions of one house. Father-in-law of the complainant was in possession of one portion of the house, although he had no share in the said house. Civil case was going on between the parties in this regard and due to this reason, there used to be a verbal quarrel between the parties. The family members of petitioner No.1 had not attended the marriage of the complainant. During investigation, it had not been established that the petitioners had ever uttered any derogatory words against the complainant. The complaint had been filed with a view to put pressure on the petitioners. The trial Court dismissed the complaint filed by respondent No.1, vide order dated 16.5.2011 (Annexure P-3) and it was observed by the trial Court as under:- “After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and going through the record of the case, the court is of the view that the complainant has failed to make out sufficient ground to proceed against any of the accused. At the outset there has not been mentioned any date of alleged occurrence. As per case of complainant, she belongs to Revidasia caste before her marriage vide caste certificate Ex.CW3/A which apparently issued in the name of her father. She got married with Vikram Kumar, who belong to Arora caste and that the accused being relative of her husband were not happy with the said marriage and used to harass and taunt her. As per case of complainant, she belongs to Revidasia caste before her marriage vide caste certificate Ex.CW3/A which apparently issued in the name of her father. She got married with Vikram Kumar, who belong to Arora caste and that the accused being relative of her husband were not happy with the said marriage and used to harass and taunt her. Now when the applicant has married with an upper caste boy in that sense she cannot take the benefit of any of his earlier status before marriage as she lost that very status and joined the status of her husband and in that sense she cannot claim herself to be belonging to a case to which her father belonged. So, no offence in that sense can be made out under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. As aforesaid the allegations are bereft of any alleged date when the alleged occurrence took place. So in that sense also qua the other allegations of giving her slaps by the accused and mis-behaviour, this court is of the view that even those offences cannot be said to be made out that would warrant to proceed against the accused. Moreover, no attribution has been against any of the accused particularly as to which of the accused gave her which kind of beating. It has equally been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1947 in its double bench observation that there cannot be issued any process against the accused where the allegations in the complaint if taken even on the face value make out apparently no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused. The statement of the witnesses as recorded in support of the case taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against accused and complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences which is alleged against the accused.” 7. Aggrieved against the said order, respondent No.1 preferred revision petition and the same was allowed by the Court of revision. Aggrieved against the said order, respondent No.1 preferred revision petition and the same was allowed by the Court of revision. Petitioners No.1 and 2 were ordered to be summoned to face the trial qua commission of offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act, whereas, all the petitioners were ordered to be summoned to face the trial qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 506, 34 IPC. 8. In the present case, a perusal of the complaint itself fails to reveal that the petitioners had committed any criminal offence. Parties are closely related to each other. Admittedly, civil litigation was pending between the parties although now the complainant side has won the civil suit. Complainant is now member of the family of the petitioners, although they may or may not attended her marriage. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the possibility that the complaint in question had been filed with a view to pressurise the petitioners with regard to the civil litigation pending between the parties cannot be ruled out. Hence, it would be just and expedient to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Criminal complaint No.16 dated 28.2.2006 under Section 3 of the Act and Sections 452, 323, 506, 34 IPC (Annexure P-2) as well as order dated 6.7.2012 (Annexure P-4) are quashed.