HANUMAN SINGH Vs. BAHADUR SINGH SAINI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner prays for setting aside orders dated 03.01.2009 (Annexure P1) and 02.04.2009 (Annexure P2), passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul and the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, respectively, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and revision petition preferred by the petitioner, was dismissed. Brief facts of this case are that Hanuman Singh, petitioner filed a criminal complaint on the allegations that he is Chamar by caste, whereas accused No. 1 is Saini and accused No. 2 and 3 are Gujjar by caste (respondents No. 1 to 3 herein). He is owner in possession of land measuring 6 bighas 4 biswas comprised in khasra No. 3223. The accused in connivance allotted him land of inferior quality in lieu of his aforesaid land. On 23.07.2007, at about 11.00 am, he visited the office of accused No. 1 to make a request to get the land demarcated but all the three accused threatened and rebuked him and asked him to leave the office. When the complainant resisted, the accused uttered abusive language saying him 'chamar and dhed'. The said words were spoken by the accused in the presence of Kamal Singh and Ajay Kumar, residents of Narnaul.

(2.) AFTER recording preliminary evidence consisting of statements of the complainant and Ajay Kumar (PW2), the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, dismissed the complaint with the findings that no prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, 'the 1989 Act'). The petitioner carried the matter in revision, but was unsuccessful.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that at the stage of summoning the accused, the Court cannot go into the question whether there was any truth in the allegations made but only has to satisfy whether on the basis of allegations, a cognizable offence has been alleged and made out. It is further submitted that keeping in view the allegations of the complainant, duly corroborated by Ajay Kumar (PW2), while examined in the light of documents proved on record, a prima facie case is made out for summoning the accused but the Court of Judicial Magistrate and revisional Court in an illegal and arbitrary manner dismissed the complaint causing a serious miscarriage justice. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon 'Ram Babu v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others', : 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 204 and 'Sibu v. Mohinder Singh', : 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 165.