PARTAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. No. 130 dated 3.9.2007 registered at Police Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib and all proceedings pursuant thereto. The petitioner is the accused named in the aforesaid F.I.R.

(2.) A reading of the F.I.R. in question would go to show that a complaint was filed before the Punjab State Scheduled Castes Commission Chandigarh by respondent No. 3 Bala Singh son of Puran Singh resident of village Bhaini Jer, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib under Section 10 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It was alleged that on 2.8.2006 the accused-petitioner who is an Ex-Sarpanch had abused the complainant Bala Singh with reference to his caste. On the basis of the said complaint, the Commission constituted a fact finding committee consisting of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (D), Fatehgarh Sahib and the District Welfare Officer, Fatehgarh Sahib. The committee submitted its report on 26.6.2007on the basis of which the Commission took a view that, prima facie, commission of an offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act by the accused-petitioner is made out. Accordingly directions were issued to the Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib to register an F.I.R. and duly investigate the same. Accordingly this petition has been filed for quashing the said F.I.R.

(3.) A reading of the F.I.R. which has been annexed as Annexure P-1 to the petition would go to show that no details of the alleged abuse to the informant/complainant Bala Singh by the accused have been mentioned therein. The place where the alleged abuse was meted out, the persons present and the words used are also absent. Section 3(1)(x) of the Act makes an intentional insult or intimidation in order to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view an offence. In the absence of any details in the F.I.R. it is difficult to hold that an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act has been made out against the accused-petitioner.