RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJINDER Kumar and Satish Kumar, petitioners-accused seek quashing of complaint dated 11.7.2000 (Annexure P-1) filed under Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and under Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code filed by Mohinder, complainant- respondent No. 2 which is pending in the Court of Special Judge, Kaithal.

(2.) THE circumstances which led to the filing of complaint at the behest of Mohinder, complainant need to be noticed briefly. The complainant was employed as Agricultural Labourer to work in the fields of Rajinder Kumar, accused No. 1 in the year 1996. It was agreed between the parties that Rs. 1500/- per month would be paid as wages to the complainant. Wife of the complainant also used to do labour work in the fields of petitioner-accused No. 1 on daily wages. Accused No. 1 had obtained thumb impression of the complainant and his wife, Raj Pati alias Rajo, on blank papers in the Bahi kept by him as well as on some printed papers. Accused No. 1 did not pay wages to the complainant for the last three years despite repeated demands made by him. On 8.7.2000, the complainant along with his wife and father-in- law, Manphool went to the fields of accused No. 1, where Satish Kumar, accused No. 2 was also present. When accused No. 1 was asked to pay the wages of the complainant, he uttered the words "Sale Dedh Chamer Ne Karna Dharna Kuch Nahin Aur Gya Paise Mangnee Chal Bhag Ja Yahan Se Nahin To Tractor Neeche De Dunga." Thereafter wife of the complainant also asked accused No. 1 to settle her account but he paid no heed to her request. At this stage accused No. 2 stated to the complainant "Mere Sale Gittal Ko Itenee Joot Marange Ke Sara Hissab Kitab Bhool Jayega". After that both the accused started beating the complainant by giving him kicks and fist blow. When Manphool tried to rescue him, he too was slapped by the accused. When they were leaving that place, accused No. 1 again threatened them saying "Mera Sale Chamar Ke Dubara Shakal Na Dhakana Nahin To Jinda Nahin Jane Dunga." On the same day i.e. 8.7.2000, the complainant with his wife and father-in-law went to the Police Station and lodged the report but no action was taken by the Police. On 9.2.2000, the complainant, his wife and father-in-law went to the residence of the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal and tried to submit an application for taking action against accused Nos. 1 and 2 but his application was not received. It is under these circumstances the complaint came to be filed. In support of the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant had examined himself as CW-1 and also examined his father-in-law, Manphool as CW-2 and his wife, Raj Pati as CW-3 in the preliminary evidence led by him. In addition postal receipts Ex.CW-1/A and Ex.CW/1-B were also placed on record. Taking into consideration the evidence led by the complainant, the accused were ordered to be summoned under Sections 323 and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(x) of the Act. Thereafter the present petition was filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the aforesaid complaint and the summoning order dated 3.1.2001 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla, District Kaithal.

(3.) THE grounds taken in the petition on the basis of which quashing of summoning order has been sought has been taken into consideration. It has been pleaded therein that Mohinder, complainant had been working as Labourer with Rajinder Kumar, petitioner arrayed as accused No. 1, since 1982 and accusant used to take money as advance whenever it was needed by him. On 31.5.2000, the complainant refused to work with the petitioner and Panchayat was convened. The accounts were settled and a sum of Rs. 28,000/- was found as payable by the complainant to petitioner No. 1. At that time the complainant had assured petitioner No. 1 that he would pay the amount in instalments by doing the work somewhere else. Instead of honouring the settlement arrived at between the parties on 11.7.2000, a false complaint was filed by him on the allegations made in the complaint, though factually no such incident had occurred and no beating whatsoever was given to the complainant, his wife and his father-in-law. Additionally, it was stated that taking the allegations at their face value offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is not disclosed. Even otherwise, offence is not alleged to have been committed within a public view because the incident had taken place in the fields of the petitioner which is a private place and not a public place.