H.R.PANWAR, J. - (1.) BY the instant criminal revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code', hereinafter), the petitioners have challenged the order dated 03.04.1993 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi. (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in complaint case No. 19/92 whereby the trial Court took the cognizance of the offence under section 3(x) of the SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter). Aggrieved by the order taking cognizance, the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the complainant. Carefully gone through the order impugned as also the record of the trial Court. The non-petitioner filed a complaint before the trial Court on 01.05.1992 against the petitioners stating therein that on 22.04.1992, police recovered four gas cylinders, which were illegally kept in the house of petitioner No. 1 of which the complainant was in possession as a tenant. He has stated that on 23-4.04.1992 as also on 27.04.1992, he was abused by the family members of petitioner No. 1. He reported the matter and ultimately compromised the matter on 29.04.1992 in court premises. After the compromise was arrived at between the parties and there being no case against the petitioners, on 30.04.1992 during the day hours, some guests came to house of the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 Amrit Lal, his daughter petitioner No. 6 Bharti and the guests were taking ice-cream; when the non-petitioner came out of his house, on seeing him, Bharti threw the ice-cream saying that complainant had an evil eye on the ice-cream. The complainant felt insulted. He also stated that petitioner No. 2 Smt. Nirmala also stated that under the fear, the complainant compromised the matter.
(3.) FROM perusal of the complaint particularly para 16 of the complaint, it is clear that the actual occurrence took place on 23, 24 and 27.04.1992 for which a complaint was filed by the complainant non-petitioner before the court and the complainant himself voluntarily compromised the matter in the court and, therefore, the complaint earlier filed by him was dismissed by the court. Now the only question remains, with regard to alleged occurrence of 30.04.1992, whether the offence punishable under section 3(x) of the Act is prima facie made out. It appears that petitioner No. 1 Amrit Lal, his daughter Bharti petitioner No. 6 and their guests were taking ice-cream and when the complainant came out of his house, on seeing him, Bharti threw her ice-cream and the complainant gathered the impression from the gesture that by seeing the complainant, she threw the ice-cream and, therefore, the complainant gathered the impression that he has been insulted. No other role has been assigned to any one except petitioner No. 2 Nirmala and No. 6 Bharti, and except that petitioner No. 1 Amrit Lal, his companion Champa Lal alias Farzi Bharat Patel and Phoolchand Jain started laughing. From the complaint, it appears that it is the non-petitioner who gathered impression that he has been insulted by the alleged gesture by petitioner No. 6 Bharti. The complaint does not disclose that the petitioners intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate the complainant, a member of scheduled caste in any place within the public view.;