AMRIT LAL MARDIA & ORS. Vs. DINESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant criminal revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code', hereinafter), the petitioners have challenged the order dated 03.04.1993 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi. (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in complaint case No. 19/92 whereby the trial Court took the cognizance of the offence under section 3(x) of the SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter). Aggrieved by the order taking cognizance, the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the complainant. Carefully gone through the order impugned as also the record of the trial Court.

(3.) FROM perusal of the complaint particularly para 16 of the complaint, it is clear that the actual occurrence took place on 23, 24 and 27.04.1992 for which a complaint was filed by the complainant non-petitioner before the court and the complainant himself voluntarily compromised the matter in the court and, therefore, the complaint earlier filed by him was dismissed by the court. Now the only question remains, with regard to alleged occurrence of 30.04.1992, whether the offence punishable under section 3(x) of the Act is prima facie made out. It appears that petitioner No. 1 Amrit Lal, his daughter Bharti petitioner No. 6 and their guests were taking ice-cream and when the complainant came out of his house, on seeing him, Bharti threw her ice-cream and the complainant gathered the impression from the gesture that by seeing the complainant, she threw the ice-cream and, therefore, the complainant gathered the impression that he has been insulted. No other role has been assigned to any one except petitioner No. 2 Nirmala and No. 6 Bharti, and except that petitioner No. 1 Amrit Lal, his companion Champa Lal alias Farzi Bharat Patel and Phoolchand Jain started laughing. From the complaint, it appears that it is the non-petitioner who gathered impression that he has been insulted by the alleged gesture by petitioner No. 6 Bharti. The complaint does not disclose that the petitioners intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate the complainant, a member of scheduled caste in any place within the public view.