PRITPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of above mentioned two petitions as both pertain to the same FIR.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case as per prosecution version are that complainant Harbhajan Singh son of Khazan Singh, resident of Village Kuthi, an Ex.Serviceman had submitted a written complaint addressed to SHO, Police Station Dorangla, Gurdaspur, wherein, he mentioned that on 29.11.2017, marriage ceremonies of his younger son Baljinder Singh were going on in the street. In the meanwhile, Pritpal Singh son of Gurdial Singh driving a tractor trolley came there and asked the persons present there to make way, so that he could pass his tractor trolley. When some of those persons asked him to wait for some time, Pritpal Singh got infuriated and tried to take ahead the tractor trolley forcibly. Pritpal Singh started giving abuses in the name of caste of the complainant. He attacked several persons forming the marriage party and gave filthy abuses. Pritam Singh son of Bishan Singh abetted him for doing so. On the basis of such complaint, formal FIR dated 30.11.2017 was recorded for offences under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act') and Sections 323, 279 and 149 IPC. Thereafter, the matter was investigated. Pritpal Singh son of Gurdial Singh had submitted an application to the police for cancellation of FIR, which was enquired into by DSP (HQ) Gurdaspur, who came to the conclusion that no offence under Section 279 IPC and Section 3 of the Act was disclosed; remaining offences under Sections 323 and 149 IPC were non-cognizable and furthermore, both the parties had entered into a compromise, therefore, cancellation report be prepared and filed in the Court. Accordingly, cancellation report was prepared, however, Deputy District Attorney (Legal), Gurdaspur raised certain queries. Thereafter, the challan was prepared and filed in the Court.

(3.) Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners had approached the Court of Sessions, seeking pre-arrest bail but were unsuccessful there. As such, they have knocked at the door of this Court, craving for grant of similar relief.