RAJBIR DHIMAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused Rajbir Dhiman, D. R. Kamboj and Rajinder Singh have filed the instant criminal revision petition assailing order dated 13.05.2011 Annexure P-1 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court), Kurukshetra thereby ordering framing of charge against the accused- petitioners under Sections 323 and 506/ 34 Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') and Section 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xiv) and 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, 'Act') and the consequent charge-sheet Annexure P-2.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 Rajesh Kumar instituted criminal complaint Annexure P-10 against the petitioners under Sections 323 and 506 IPC and Section 3 of the Act. Rajbir Dhiman petitioner No. 1 was Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Kurukshetra; D. R. Kamboj petitioner No. 2 was Assistant Estate Officer, HUDA, Kurukshetra and Rajinder Singh, petitioner No. 3 was Junior Engineer, HUDA, Kurukshetra. Case of the complainant is that he is devotee of Mahakaleshwar Mandir situated adjacent to village Umri and usually goes daily to the said Mandir for worship and for attending to cows having suffered injuries in accidents being kept there. On 16.05.2007 at about 5.15pm/5.30pm, the complainant was going to' start his worship in the aforesaid Mandir. Gulshan Kumar devotee also come there. All the three accused accompanied by one S.B. Lohia entered the temple with their leather shoes on their feet. The complainant and Gulshan Kumar objected to the same and asked the accused to put off their shoes outside the temple. Accused No. 1 Rajinder Kumar Rohila (petitioner No. 3 Rajinder Singh) exploded with anger and asked the complainant as to who he was and also asked his caste. The complainant replied that he belonged to Harijan Ravidasia Chamar caste. On hearing it, accused No. 1 humiliated the complainant by abusing him in the name of his caste. Accused No. 2 D.R. Kamboj (petitioner No. 2) also joined accused No. 1 and used filthy language against complainant to humiliate him. Gulshan Kumar tried to' intervene, but accused No. 3 Rajbir Dhiman (petitioner No. 1) used unparliamentary language with reference to the caste of the complainant. Accused No. 1 called his labourers who entered the temple wearing leather shoes. They were asked to throw out the complainant from the temple. They caught hold of the complainant and threw him out of the temple. The accused also threatened the complainant and kicked the idols installed in the temple. They also put dirty water on Shivling. Accused also damaged portion of the temple. Several other devotees also gathered during the occurrence.

(3.) The accused were ordered to be summoned after recording preliminary evidence. The case was committed to Special Court. Learned Special Court vide impugned order Annexure P-1 ordered framing of charge against the accused and accordingly framed charge Annexure P-2. Feeling aggrieved, accused have filed the instant revision petition.