PARAMBIR SINGH GILL Vs. MALKIAT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.PC" - for short) seeking quashing of a criminal complaint No. 10 dated 13.2.2006 (Annexure P1) titled Malkiat Kaur v. Nirmal Singh and Others qua the petitioner for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 506, 148/149 Indian Penal Code ("IPC" - for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("Act" - for short) pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, the summoning order dated 16.5.2006 (Annexure P2) and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) THE complainant Malkiat Kaur (respondent) filed a criminal complaint (Annexure P1) titled Malkiat Kaur v. Nirmal Singh and Others in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri alleging the commission of the offences as mentioned above. It has been alleged in the said complaint that on 8.2.2006 at about 8.30 am, the complainant along with her nephew Gurjant Singh was returning from their cattle field after tethering their cattle. The complainant was ahead of her nephew Gurjant Singh by about 5-7 karams. Accused No. 1 to 6 (not the petitioner) as per their plan were waiting for the complainant to cross from near their house. When the complainant reached near their house, accused No. 1 to 6, some of them were armed, had used derogatory and offending language with respect to the caste of the complainant. Besides, she was beaten and she suffered some injuries. The husband of the complainant namely Baghel Singh took her to the Civil Hospital, Dhuri for her medical examination. The complainant was medically examined. On the same day, after medical examination, the complainant along with her husband Baghel Singh and three advocates of Civil Court, Dhuri and one Nahar singh reported the matter to the Police Station Dhuri. They also made a written complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ("DSP" - for short) Dhuri for registration of a case against accused No. 1 to 6. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as DSP, Dhuri and is accused No. 7 in the criminal complaint (Annexure P1). It is alleged that the petitioner used derogatory language against the complainant in the presence of Baghel Singh Nahar Singh and the advocates and he refused to take any action against accused No. 1 to 6. Rather the petitioner asked the police of Police Station Dhuri not to take any action against accused No. 1 to 6. Besides, a false case i.e. FIR No. 30 dated 8.2.2006 for the offences under Sections 452, 427 and 506 IPC was registered against the family members of the complainant. It is alleged that the accused in the criminal complaint (Annexure P1) had caused injuries and used derogatory words against the modesty and reputation of the complainant and against the community in general as also against the complainant and her family members in particular who are members of the Scheduled Castes Community. It is alleged that the petitioner was pressing the family of the complainant to withdraw the case that had been registered against accused No. 1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 323 and 326 IPC. The offending words attributed to the petitioner were, it is alleged, uttered at the time of submitting the representation for taking action against accused No. 1 to 6 in the complaint (Annexure P1). The petitioner is alleged to have used derogatory language against the complainant and at that time, the accused Nirmal Singh, Satgur Singh and Gurmukh Singh were present. The petitioner, it is alleged, had tried to lower the reputation, dignity and modesty of the complainant in the eyes of the general public arid others in connivance with accused No. 1 to 6. The complainant also made a written representation to the higher officers, however, no action was taken. The complaint in her preliminary evidence examined Dr. Ramesh Kumar Sharma (CW1), complainant Malkiat Kaur (CW2), Gurjant. Singh (CW3), AMHC Gian Singh (CW4) and Baghel Singh (CW5). The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhuri after considering the same summoned the accused including the petitioner for the commission of offences finder Sections 323, 341, 506, 148 and 149 IPC; and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act vide order dated 16.5.2006 (Annexure P2). Thereafter a compromise was effected between the petitioner and the complainant and a compromise deed dated 1.3.2008 (Annexure P3) was recorded between the parties to the present petition. It is recorded that the respectable persons of the city had got the matter compromised with the petitioner and according to the compromise, the complainant does not want to take any action against the petitioner and that she would continue the complaint (Annexure P1) against the remaining accused persons.

(3.) MR . Dinesh Goyal, Advocate learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contend that a reading of the complaint (Annexure P1) would show that the offences attributed to the petitioner are under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner intentionally insulted or intimidated the complainant with an intention to humiliate her in any place within the public view which can be said to be an evidence of committing atrocities in terms of clause (x) of Section 3 of the Act. Besides, it is submitted that there is nothing to show that the petitioner wilfully neglected his duties required to be performed under the Act so as to make an offence under Section 4 of the Act. In any case, it is submitted that the offending words as attributed to the petitioner would make out an offence which is personal in nature between the complainant and the petitioner and the same having been compromised and the feeling of the complainant assuaged, besides, a compromise (Annexure P3) having been entered into between them, the impugned complaint (Annexure P1), the summoning order (Annexure P2) and all consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed qua the petitioner.