Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 241 (PNJ)

Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab

2013-02-21

L.N.MITTAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (ORAL):- Accused Jaspal Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing criminal complaint No.18 dated 18.01.2005 titled Amarjit Singh Versus Jaspal Singh under Section 3(i), (iii), (x) and (xiv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the ‘Act’) Annexure P-1 instituted by respondent No.2 against petitioner accused. 2. None has appeared for respondent No.2-complainant in spite of service and in spite of many adjournments. Consequently, I have heard counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel and perused the case file. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contended that taking the averments made in the complaint at face value, no offence falling under Clauses (i), (iii) and (xiv) of Section 3(1) of the Act, is made out. There is considerable merit in the contention. Offensive acts, mentioned in the said Clauses, have not been averred in the complaint. Consequently, from the complaint averments, it cannot be said that any such offence falling under the said Clauses was committed by the petitioner. 4. As regards, offence falling under Clause (x) of Section 3(1) of the Act, counsel for the petitioner, relying on two judgments of this Court namely Rajinder Kumar versus State of Haryana, 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 245 and Chaman Lal Goyal versus Kaur Singh, 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 377, contended that the complainant in the complaint has not alleged that the petitioner-accused was already aware that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste and therefore, ingredients of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are also not satisfied by the averments made in the complaint. There is considerable merit in this contention. In the complaint, the complainant has alleged that the parties were already known to each other. However, it has not been alleged that the accused was aware that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste. In the cases of Chaman Lal Goyal (supra) and Rajinder Kumar (supra), it has been laid down that without averment to the effect that the accused was aware that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste, offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is not made out. In the cases of Chaman Lal Goyal (supra) and Rajinder Kumar (supra), it has been laid down that without averment to the effect that the accused was aware that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste, offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is not made out. In the case of Rajinder Kumar (supra), the complainant and his wife had even worked as employees of the accused, but nevertheless in the absence of necessary averment to the aforesaid effect, it was found that ingredients of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are not satisfied. Consequently, in the instant case, since the complainant has not alleged in the complaint that the petitioner-accused was already aware that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Cast, ingredients of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, are not made out. 5. Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and impugned criminal complaint Annexure P-1 is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.