Dilbagh Singh & Ors. v. Sukhjinder Kaur

Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondent. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint titled Sukhjinder Kaur Vs. Kundan Singh and others under Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'The S.C. and S.T. Act'), 1989 and Section 323/506 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondent-complainant is taking undue advantage of a special Legislation. No offence has been committed. At the first instance, the respondent was required to go before the police. Rather an application was filed whereupon inquiries were conducted. It has been concluded by the investigating agency that no such incident took place and unparliamentary language had Crl. Misc. No. M-44849 of 2007 2 not been used. Rather there was a dispute in regard to some government path. Each of the sides claimed their right over the path. The inquiry reports have been placed on record as Annexures P-3, P-5 and P-6. Learned counsel further contends that material facts were concealed from the Magistrate in the complaint. Continuance of proceedings shall result in abuse of process of Court. Notice of motion was issued on 07.09.2007. For some time, the respondent put in appearance through the counsel, however, none has been appearing for the respondent since 31.08.2009. Even reply to the assertions made on behalf of the petitioner has not been filed. In the criminal complaint (Annexure P-1) in regard to the complaint to the police, it has been stated in para no. 3 that the complainant made an application to the SHO against the accused and another to SSP Muktsar. An application was also made to the Commission constituted for redressal of the grievances of members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. It has been stated that police authorities came to the village on the complaint one or two times, however, no action has been taken by the police against the accused. Reference to Annexure P-3 indicates that a detailed inquiry was conducted by SHO, P.S. Sadar Muktsar as is evident from the report dated

29.10.2006. It has been concluded by the authorities that the complainant had some dispute with the accused regarding government path. Both the parties claimed their right over the path. A decision had been taken in that regard, however, the complainant refused to accept the same. In the statements recorded during inquiry, none of the persons have stated that unparliamentary language had been used. It has further been concluded Crl. Misc. No. M-44849 of 2007 3 specifically that the complainant has filed complaint just to take possession of the path and to harass the petitioners. Annexure P-5 is a report of inquiry conducted by a DSP, Muktsar dated 10.07.2006. Following is the relevant portion of the conclusion drawn by the officer:- “The enquiry of the applications has been got conducted from S.H.O. P.S. Sadar Muktsar and during enquiry the statements of Gurdip Singh Panch and Harbans Lal, Lambardar were recorded. It is found that Kundan Singh son of Dasondha Singh and his sons Dilbagh Singh and Sarabjit Singh had purchased 10 marla plot from Subegh Singh son of Buta Singh and 12 marla Land was purchased from sons of Puran Singh, which adjoined the above plot, in this way their plot adjoined to the Nehri Land on which Subegh Singh claimed his right to the effect that the above said land belongs to him and he is stopping Kundan Singh and his sons from passing from that land and has been giving the applications. The above said Sukhjinder Kaur applicant is the sister-in-law (Bhabi) of Subegh singh. The husband of the applicant namely Baldev Singh and Subegh Singh are the brothers being the sons of real sisters (Mausi) and are working in Electricity Board. Baldev Singh and Subegh Singh are helping each other. Kundan Singh and his sons neither uttered filthy words to the applicant nor threats have been given. Being employed in electricity Department they are putting pressure of Union. The applicant is also helping Subegh Singh. The disputed Crl. Misc. No. M-44849 of 2007 4 land belongs to irrigation department and is a Govt. land, on which no body has any right. The applications given by the applicants have been found false. Original applications, statements and Panchayat Nama are attached with the applications. Orders be passed for filing the applications. Report be submitted.” Perusal of the above portion indicates that the complaints made by the respondent-complainant are false. It is an attempt to take possession of land and so as to force the accused, the complaint has been made. Annexure P-6 is an inquiry report dated 19.09.2006 authored by DSP Muktsar, wherein again, similar conclusion has been drawn that unparlimentary language in the context of the complainant had not been used. The conclusion has been drawn on the basis of statements of witnesses to the incident. Considering the inquiry reports in the context of averment made in para no. 3 of the complaint as noticed above, I am of the considered opinion that the complainant has tried to mislead the Court by way of saying that the police authorities had not taken any action in the matter. As many as three inquiries have been conducted each time concluding that the petitioners had not committed the offence as alleged in the complaint. Facts and circumstances brought out from the pleadings are sufficient to conclude that it is an abuse of a special Legislation. Allegations of commission of offence under the S.C. and S.T. Act are not made out. Complaint has been filed, not for the reason that petitioner has committed an offence, rather with some ulterior motive. Crl. Misc. No. M-44849 of 2007 5 The pleadings indicate that there is some dispute in regard to a path. Both the sides are trying to take possession of that path. A decision had been taken by respectables as is evident from Annexure P-4. As per the enquiry reports the respondent did not accept the decision. In a mala fide exercise the criminal complaint has been filed so as to pressurize the petitioner in the matter of possession of the path. This is when on repeated complaints and three enquiries the investigation agency concluded that no offence under the S.C. and S.T. Act had been committed. Factum of conclusion drawn by police authorities or enquiries has intentionally not been disclosed in the complaint. In such circumstances, continuance of these proceedings shall result in abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Complaint titled Sukhjinder Kaur Vs. Kundan Singh and others under Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'The Act'), 1989 read with Section 323/506 IPC is hereby quashed.

02.02.2010 shivani (AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE