LAWS(UTN)-2010-10-32

POORAN BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Decided On October 21, 2010
POORAN BAHADUR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the order dated 10.8.2010 as well as the proceedings of Criminal Case No.1184 of 2010, Rajendra Vs. Pooran Bahadur & others, U/s 452/323/504/506 IPC and 3/10 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), pending before the court of J.M. Rudrapur, Distt. US Nagar.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

(3.) In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent no.2- Rajendra filed a complaint stating therein that his son had solemnized love marriage with Geeta in 2005, who is the daughter of petitioner no.1- Puran Bahadur, due to which the complainant had cut off the relations with his son Rakesh and he also expelled his son from his movable and immovable property. From this marriage, the parents of Geeta were not happy because the complainant is a member of the Scheduled Caste while the family of Geeta belonging to upper caste and for this reason, the petitioners were having enmity with the complainant. On 6.5.2010 at 6 PM, petitioners Puran Bahadur and Nagendra Bahadur suddenly entered inside the complainant's house and started hurling filthy abuses and petitioner Nagendra beaten him with Dandas while the petitioner Puran Bahadur beaten him with wooden stick. Petitioner Puran Bahadur also beaten the son of complainant, namely, Ishwar. On hearing the noise, Ajay Pratap and several other persons arrived there and the petitioners went away by uttering caste indicated words and threatening to kill him in future. The complainant got himself examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. while u/s 202 Cr.P.C., Smt. Sundar, Ishwar Kumar and Ajay Pratap were examined. Vide order dated 10.8.2010, the trial court summoned the petitioners u/s 452/323/504/506 IPC and 3/10 of the Act. Hence this petition.