KULDIP RAJ MAHAJAN Vs. HUKAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KULDIP Raj Mahajan has approached this Court by way of instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') for quashing of criminal complaint No. 130 of 2000 instituted by Hukam Chand-respondent against the petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar (Annexure P-1) under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act') and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, along with summoning order dated 19.9.2002 (Annexure P-2).

(2.) THE respondent inter alia alleged in the impugned complaint Annexure P-1 that he belongs to Dhanak caste which is a Scheduled Caste whereas the petitioner belongs to Vaish caste which is a higher caste. The respondent, at the relevant time, was working as Head Cashier in State Bank of Patiala, Branch Mayar, District Hisar where the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager. On 9.9.19999, at about 4.45 p.m., the petitioner insulted the respondent in the presence of other employees and abused him by his caste. Petitioner's utterances demeaning the respondent by caste have been quoted in paragraph 4 of the complaint. Tilak Raj Khurana, Cashier Incharge and also Jag Ram and Wazir Singh, Watchmen-cum-Peons were present there at that time. They objected to the offensive utterances made by the petitioner, but the petitioner continued with his abusive language. On 10.9.1999, the respondent reported this matter to the higher authorities which further annoyed the petitioner, who ran towards respondent to assault him. Same witnesses saved the respondent. Petitioner was using abusive caste based language against the respondent and threatened to implicate him in a false case and to get him removed from service. The petitioner extended threat to the life of the respondent. The respondent filed a complaint in Police Station Hisar and later on made representation on 29.10.1999 to Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range, Hisar. Another representation was made to the Inspector General of Police on 9.11.1999. Ultimately FIR No. 11 dated 8.1.2000 was registered, but the police, even thereafter, did not take any action nor arrested the petitioner. On 23.4.2000, the respondent went to the Police Station to inquire about the progress in the matter and was told that due to political pressure, police officials were unable to arrest the petitioner. Thereupon the respondent filed the impugned complaint dated 24.4.2000 (Annexure P-1). After recording of preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate, vide impugned order dated 19.9.2002 (Annexure P-2), summoned the petitioner as accused for offence under Section 3 of the Act and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashing of the impugned complaint and summoning order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondent was not performing his duties and the petitioner had written the above letters to the respondent and higher authorities about non-performance of the duty by the respondent and as a counter-blast, the respondent instituted the impugned complaint falsely against the petitioner. This contention alone, if considered in isolation, perhaps might not have been sufficient to quash the impugned complaint and summoning order, but considered cumulatively along with other contentions to be discussed hereafter, the contention merits acceptance. Even the respondent has alleged in the impugned complaint, as well as in reply to the instant petition, that he was feeling aggrieved against the petitioner in day to day working in the Bank. The respondent has not denied the aforesaid letters Annexure P-3 to P-8. These would show that the petitioner was impressing upon the respondent to perform his additional duty of writing Day Book etc., but the respondent had the notion that the petitioner was intentionally harassing him by assigning this additional duty. It was in fact even the stand of learned counsel for the respondent during the course of arguments, that no such additional duty of writing Day Book etc. could be assigned to the respondent. In this regard, reference was made to duties of Head Cashier as mentioned in Annexure R-5. However, this stand of the respondent is not acceptable because Annexure R-5 defines only duties of Head Cashier, but it does not say that in the event of paucity of staff, additional duty cannot be assigned to the Head Cashier. On the contrary, the petitioner assigned the additional duty to the respondent by way of written order Annexure P-3. Some additional duty was also assigned to another employee Pawan Kumar by the same order. If the respondent thought that additional duty could not be assigned to him, he should have written to the petitioner or higher authorities against order Annexure P-3, but the respondent never did so. Consequently, now he cannot be heard to say that no such additional duty could be assigned to him. However, aforesaid stand of the respondent reflects clearly that respondent was nursing a grudge against the petitioner for assigning additional duty to the respondent vide order Annexure P-3. Besides, it letters Annexures P-4, P-5, P-7 and P-8 were also written by the petitioner regarding non-performance of the additional duty by the respondent, who was therefore further annoyed with the petitioner. At no stage, the respondent furnished any explanation for not performing the additional duty assigned to him vide order Annexure P-3. On the other hand, the respondent, by way of his reply Annexure P-6, made an attempt to pressurize the petitioner by intimating that the respondent had taken up the matter with Central Office of his union. If the respondent was aggrieved by the actions of the petitioner relating to order Annexure P-3 and letters Annexure P-4 and P-5, the respondent should have expressed the same when he was being asked to submit his reply. However, the respondent did not think it proper to do so.