- (1.) Petitioners have filed this revision petition against respondents under Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 24.12.2011 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide which charges under Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 323/34 and 506/34 IPC were framed against the petitioners. It is mainly stated in the revision petition that the order dated 24.12.2011 framing the charges under Sections 323/506/34 IPC and Section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act is against the law and facts on the record. It is further stated in the revision petition that on 10.07.2007, a false complaint was filed by respondent No.1 before learned JMIC, Muktsar on the allegations that the petitioners called her with the name of her caste as she belongs to Scheduled Caste category and they also gave her beatings. It is further stated that applications were also given to SHO, P.S. Sadar Muktsar and SSP, Muktsar but no action was taken by the police authorities.
(2.) Learned JMIC, Sri Muktsar Sahib, on the basis of preliminary evidence, summoned the accused. Thereafter, petitioners filed CRM No.M-33248 of 2010 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint as well as summoning order on the ground that no offence is made out. In that petition, notice of motion was issued and notice regarding stay was also issued but no stay was granted and the said petition is pending. As no stay was granted, therefore, now the charges have been framed. It is also stated in the petition that the petitioners party have purchased some land from Subeg Singh and some land from sons of Puran Singh. The land purchased from the sons of Puran Singh adjoins the plot purchased by the petitioners from Subeg Singh, which further adjoins to the Nehri land and on the said Nehri land, the above-said Subeg Singh claimed his right whereas the said land belongs to the Government. The complainant-respondent No.1 Sukhjinder Kaur is sister-in-law of above-said Subeg Singh and to grab the Government land, this false complaint has been filed by the complainant against the petitioners. It is also stated in the petition that earlier also respondent No.1 filed a similar type of complaint dated 20.03.2006 against petitioner No.2 and Kundan Singh father and Sarabjit Singh brother of petitioner No.2. In that case also, respondent No.1 gave applications to the police authorities and the police authorities after conducting enquiry, came to the conclusion that no such incident ever took place. Petitioner No.2, his father and brother approached this Court by filing CRM No.M- 44849 of 2007 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of earlier complaint as well as summoning order. That petition was allowed vide order dated 02.02.2010. It is also stated in the petition that no offene is made out. The offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is made out when something is said qua the caste at a public place.
(3.) The other offences are also not made out and there is no medical evidence on the record to prove that any injury has been given by petitioner No.2 to respondent No.1. There is also delay of more than two months in filing the present complaint. Notice of motion was issued in this case. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.1. Learned State counsel appeared on behalf of respondent No.2-State and contested this petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, firstly I find that earlier also respondent No.1 has filed a complaint against Dilbagh Singh, Sukhbir Singh sons of Kundan Singh and Kundan Singh, which was quashed by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2010. The earlier complaint was filed in the year 2006 and that was also under Section 3 of SC/ST Act and under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. Dilbagh Singh was party in that complaint, who is petitioner No.2 in the present petition. Now name of Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Dilbagh Singh has also been shown as accused in the present complaint. In the earlier complaint, Sarabjit Singh was also party and now Rajinder Kaur wife of Sarabjit Singh has been made party instead of Sarabjit Singh. Sukhbir Singh, the other son of Kundan Singh, who was accused in that case, has been made party in the present case, which means that present complaint is against the family members of Kundan Singh i.e. the same family members against whom the earlier complaint was filed. In the earlier petition, this Court vide order dated 02.02.2010 has held that there is dispute regarding a path. Both the sides are trying to take possession of that path. A decision had been taken by respectables. The Court has also taken note of enquiry reports that respondent did not accept the decision of the respectables. It is also held in that order that as a malafide exercise, the criminal complaint has been filed so as to pressurize the petitioner in the matter of possession of the path. This is when on repeated complaints and three enquiries, the investigating agency concluded that no offence under SC/ST Act has been committed. When proceedings of earlier complaint were pending, then fresh complaint has been filed by levelling almost same allegations. Even from the perusal of the complaint, no offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act is made out. These words 'Charmeh Too Sade Te Case Kar Ditta Hai Assi Tenu Samjhage' are in no way connected with the caste of the complainant. Secondly, when the words referring to caste of the complainant have been uttered as per the complainant, then at that time no person was present. In the complaint itself, it is written that accused No.1 and 2 caught hold of her (complainant) whereas accused No.3 and 4 gave kick blows on her stomach and also dragged her by her hair. At that time, Gurmeet Singh was passing through the street and Hardev Singh had also witnessed the occurrence from a distance of 5-6 karams, which means that when those words were uttered, these persons were not present. It is the necessary ingredient that these words must have been uttered in the public view. As regarding the offence under Section 323 IPC etc., there is no medical evidence and no MLR has been placed on the record, therefore, this offence is not supported by any evidence. Moreover, even the complainant-respondent No.1 did not appear in this case to contest the proceedings.;