PRITAM CHAND Vs. NARESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing charge framed against petitioners on dated 30.6.2014 under section 3 (1)(x) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and under section 323, 352, 504 read with section 34 IPC.

(2.) Naresh Kumar complainant filed private criminal complaint under sections 323, 352, 504 read with section 34 IPC and under section 3 (1)(x) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. It is alleged in private complaint that on dated 25.5.2012 at about 7.30 PM at village Lanjot accused persons insulted and humiliated complainant who is member of scheduled caste by raising casteist remarks within public view. It is further alleged in complaint that accused persons in furtherance of common intention used criminal force to complainant. It is further alleged in complaint that accused persons in furtherance of common attention caused hurt to complainant. It is further alleged in complaint that accused persons in furtherance of common intention caused criminal intimidation to complainant to kill him. Learned Judicial Magistrate Dharamshala recorded six witnesses of complainant in preliminary evidence. Learned Judicial Magistrate held that criminal offence under section 3 (1)(x) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to learned Sessions Judge Kangra at Dharamshala on dated 20.2.2014. Learned Special Judge cum Sessions Judge Kangra at Dharamshala HP framed charges against accused persons on dated 30.6.2014 under section 3 (1)(x) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and under section 323, 352, 504 read with section 34 IPC. Feeling aggrieved present petition is filed by accused persons.

(3.) Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and also perused entire records carefully.