RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'Cr.P.C.') prays for quashing of order dated 29.8.2001 passed by Special Judge, Sangrur. The Special Judge has set aside the order dated 20.12.2000 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri who had committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case necessary for disposal of the instant petition are that FIR No. 103 dated 6.5.1999 registered under Sections 342, 327, 389, 325, 465, 506, 326, 34 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Dhuri was lodged by the complainant-petitioner who had business dealings with accused-respondents 2 to 4. According to the allegations made in the first information report, a dispute arose with regard to some payment and on 31.1.1999 appellant- respondents 2 to 4 are alleged to have illegally detained the petitioner at about 12.30 P.M. in the area of City Dhuri. It is alleged that they also inflicted injuries to the petitioner and he remained admitted in the hospital. The petitioner alleged in the first information report that he is a partner of R.K. Soap Industries, Focal Point, Moga along with his mother Natho Devi. He used to purchase raw material for manufacturing of soap from M/s Hem Detergent, Dhuri and he had financial dealings with that firm. He visited Dhuri after telephonic talk with Hukam Chand accused-respondent 3 for settling the accounts. He was served with tea and water because he was not feeling well on account of surgery. After adding interest on his own to the tune of Rs. 1,03,000/- a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- was taken out as the due amount towards the petitioner. The discount of Rs. 68,000/- was to be given because the petitioner had sent the soap at Malerkotla on furnishing of guarantee by M/s Hem Detergent, Dhuri. It is further alleged that the raw material supplied by the accused-petitioner was of sub-standard and they were required to be given rebate. The accused Surinder Kumar and Hukam Chand stated that they would not give any supply to the petitioner. It is also alleged that the petitioner was not well and was in a hurry to reach Ambala. He left for Railway Station, Dhuri. When he was about to purchase the railway ticket at about 12.00 Noon, Parmod Kumar accused-respondent son of Surinder Kumar accused-respondent approached him and stated that his father and uncle, the other accused- respondent were sitting in the car out side and they wanted to discuss some matter with him. He came out of the rail station. A Maruti car was standing out side the gate of the taxi stand. Surinder Kumar and Hukam Chand accused- respondents were sitting in the car. Surinder Kumar asked the petitioner as to whether the was to pay the cheque amounting to Rs. 1,30,000/- or not which he refused. Surinder Kumar abused him and also stated "Kutte Chuhree Chamar nu gaddi vich sutt lo keonki Chuhra sadi brabri Karda hai." All the three are alleged to have abducted the petitioner in the car forcibly and parked the same at some distance. Then Parmod Kumar accused-respondent son of Surinder Kumar accused-respondent forcibly put him in the car and is alleged to have beaten him up. The whole episode is alleged to have been witnessed by the uncle of wife of the petitioner, namely Tony who also resides in Dhuri City. Further allegations have been made tha the accused-respondents took the petitioner to the Cold Storage by forcing him to sit in the car. At the Cold Storage, they forcibly obtained the signatures of the petitioner on a cheque of Rs. 1,30,000/- and also got 2-3 blank papers signed from his after beating. The cheque and papers have been kept by the accused-respondents. Thereafter, all of them said "Chure Chamar you can do whatever you like." They brought him to the Railway Station in the car and forced him to board a train for Ambala after purchasing a ticket. He had to be admitted in Civil Hospital, Moga for treatment.

(3.) BEFORE the Special Judge, Sangrur, an application was filed with a prayer that the accused-respondents be released from the offence under Section 3(X) of the Act. The learned Special Judge accepted the application on the ground that Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for brevity, 'the Rules') imposes an obligation that offences under the Act are to be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. It further provides that Investigating Officer is to be appointed by the State Government/Director General of Police. Reliance has been placed on various judgments relied upon by the Special Judge that if the trial in respect of an offence under the Act is held in contravention of Rule 7 of the Rules, then thee same should be vitiated. The judgments on which reliance has been placed are D. Ramalinga Reddy alias D. Babu v. State of A.P., 1999(4) RCR(Criminal) 155; M. Kathiresan v. State (Madras), 1999(4) RCR(Criminal) 790; M. Niranjan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2000(4) RCR(Crl.) 204; and E. Seshaiah v. State of A.P., 2000(3) RCR(Criminal) 610.