PALA RAM Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the order dated 21.09.2017, passed by the trial Court, vide which Criminal Complaint No. 219 of 2017, dated 24.05.2017, filed by the petitioner under Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'SC/ST Act'), was dismissed at the stage of summoning; as well as order dated 09.08.2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, vide which the revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant filed the aforesaid complaint against the respondents-accused. The petitioner/complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste. The respondents-accused are stated to be the members of the upper class and they had the knowledge that the petitioner/complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste. The petitioner/complainant was working as Junior Engineer as well as Municipal Engineer in the Municipal Council, Jind and respondent-accused No.l used to visit the office of the petitioner/complainant whereas the respondent No. 2-accused was a Controlling Officer of the District Jind. It was further stated that the petitioner/complainant for discharging his duties as Municipal Engineer has carried out demolition of unauthorized constructions and has discharged his duties honestly and diligently and never tried to refute from his duties. The respondent-accused no.l knowingly filed the complaint against the petitioner/complainant by appearing personally before the Deputy Commissioner, Jind and levelled allegations of embezzlement in the construction of streets of Jind. Then an enquiry was ordered by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Jind through the SDO Dalbir Singh. During the enquiry samples of the material used in the construction was taken and the same were sent to Laboratory for analyses and as per report dated 05.04.2013, all the samples were found accurate and no fault was found in the material used. The SDO, Jind after his satisfaction has ordered for making the payment on 19.03.2013. It was mandatory that the payment of work can be made only after the approval of Monitoring Committee. The respondent-accused No.l, who was desperate in getting the complainant punished, made a written complaint dated 14.07.2015 to Deputy Commissioner, Jind alleging the embezzlement of amount in construction of streets. The enquiry was conducted by Ms. Amrita Singh and was submitted vide memo no.142 dated 29.07.2013 to the then Deputy Commissioner, Jind. In the enquiry, it was observed that the complaint of respondent-accused no.l was baseless and frivolous. Again a fresh complaint was made by the respondent-accused no.l on 25.03.2016. The respondent-accused no.2 was having the knowledge of the aforesaid complaint but he again ordered enquiry on 11.08.2015. The respondent-accused no.2 did not verify the report of the SDO, Jind which was made earlier on the complaint of respondent-accused no.l. The enquiry ordered by respondent-accused no.2 was false. The petitioner/complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste and all this was done to harass, humiliate and torture him. The respondent-accused no.l in his complaint mentioned that embezzlement of crores of rupees has taken place whereas the entire cost incurred by Municipal Committee, Jind on the works in question was Rs.8,50,000/-. This complaint was enquired by SDO who vide letter no.578 dated 19.08.2015 made a report that the complaint on the same subject has already been enquired into. The respondent-accused no.l has again made a false complaint dated 16.11.2016 addressed to the Chief Minister Haryana in the shape of reminder no.3. It was further stated that the respondent-accused no.l met the petitioner/complainant in the main Bazaar, Jind on 13.05.2017 when the petitioner/complainant was with Amit Sharma and was going to purchase the grocery. The respondent-accused no.l told the revisionist-complainant that that he will spoil his reputation by making more and more complaints and will not allow the petitioner/complainant to have comfortable life. When the petitioner/complainant asked the respondent/accused the reason for making false complaints, the respondent-accused no.l called the petitioner/complainant Chamar by Caste and he had not obliged him at the time of construction of gali in front of his house by giving the small quantity of construction material. The petitioner/complainant reported the matter to the police, but the police did not take any action against the respondent-accused. Hence, the complaint was filed.

(3.) In his preliminary evidence, petitioner/complainant Pala Ram examined himself as CW-1 reiterating the contents of his complaint, petitioner/complainant further examined Amit Sharma as CW-2 and Clerkas CW-3, who has proved report made vide letter No.518 Ex.CW3/A and report made by SDO Ex.CW3/B and thereafter closed the preliminary evidence. The petitioner/complainant also tendered inspection report Mark-A, the details of the work done Mark-B, complaint against the petitioner/complainant Mark-C and Mark-E, copy of reminder No.3 by respondent-accused no.l Mark-F, complaint made against the revisionist complainant Mark-G, letter to SDO Mark-G and letter No.518 regarding complaint Mark-J.