Criminal Application No. 736 of 2005 · Uttarakhand High Court · 2010

of FIR was produced in the documentary evidence. On perusing the entire evidence, learned II Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.)/J.M., US Nagar (Rudrapur) vide order dated

5.10.2005 proceeded to summon the petitioner to face trial u/s 323/504/506 IPC and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. Hence this petition assailing the entire proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the provisions of the SC/ST Act are not attracted in this case as in the entire complaint, it was nowhere mentioned that the petitioner was not a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimated with intent to humiliate respondent no.2 within public view, hence the offence punishable under the SC/ST Act is not made out. I find force in this argument put forth on behalf of the petitioner. On a bare perusal of the complaint itself, there is no mention whatsoever that the petitioner was not a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimated with intent to humiliate respondent no.2 within public view. It is settled law that when the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the petitioner to face the criminal trial under the SC/ST Act would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law. Reliance is placed upon a Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court verdict in the case of (cid:147)Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & others reported in (2009) 1 SCC (Cri.) 446(cid:148). Paragraph 6 of the said judgment is reproduced as below: - (cid:147)In the instant case, the allegation of Respondent 3 in is that on 27.05.2004, the the entire complaint appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant- accused was not a member of the Scheduled 3 Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (Respondent 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or to humiliate Respondent 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law(cid:148) intimidated with intent Perusal of the complaint lodged by respondent no.2 and the statement of the complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. shows that the complainant has nowhere alleged that the petitioner is not the member of the Scheduled Caste of Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimated with intent to humiliate the respondent no.2 within public view. As such, the Court is of the view that as against the petitioner, since the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act are not made out, as such the criminal trial with respect to the said offence is liable to be quashed. So far as the rest of the offences are concerned, it transpires that the same involves patently disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided at this stage by this Court. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. If the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the 4 view that the petitioner has rightly been summoned by the trial court to face trial u/s 323/504/506 IPC as the said offences are prima facie made out against the petitioner at this stage. However, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. For the reasons recorded above, the C482 petition is partly allowed with the observation that the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act are quashed. However, so far as the rest of the offences are concerned, the trial court shall proceed as per law. Interim order dated 24.10.2005 is vacated. Rdang (Dharam Veer, J.) July 16, 2010