The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 was enacted to prohibit and curb the practice of untouchability and to protect the civil rights of persons historically and socially treated as untouchables. The Act's protection cannot be sought by a person who is not recognized as untouchable.

ORAL JUDGMENT :- Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent heard forthwith.

2. Petitioner is the original complainant. He is aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag dated 15th February, 2003 in Criminal Revision Application No. 138 of 2001.

3. The above Criminal Revision Application was preferred by the original accused (respondent Nos. 1 to 11 before me) challenging an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigad, Alibag in Summary Case No. 1040 of 2001 dated 5th December, 2001.

4. Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the process to be issued against accused for offences punishable under section 7 of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Civil Rights Act). Process was issued upon the complaint of petitioner before me.

5. Petitioner in the complaint alleged that he and his family members are residing at Mouje Phopheri post Narangi Taluka Alibag, Dist.Raigad. The name of complainant's father is Namdeo Bali Gavand. He expired on 28th July, 1999. The deceased father during his life-time was a tenant in respect of agricultural land situate at Mouje Chinchwadi, S. Nos. 13/2 (23/2). Accused Nos. 1 to 12 belong to Mouje Mandavkhod, Phopheri. The accused are Chief Panchas and representatives of villagers. These persons purported to sell the above mentioned agricultural lands. Therefore, the complainant filed Civil Suit No. 13 of 2000 and has obtained an injunction against the villagers.

6. It is alleged that adjacent to the agricultural land referred to above is the land/property of the accused. However, they are laying claims to S. Nos. 13(2) belonging to the complainant. Since, accused are claiming the lands belonging to the complainant, they had boycotted the complainant as also his father and family members since 1985-86. The accused do not maintain any relations with the complainant regarding any matters pertaining to the village. It is further alleged that whenever the villagers celebrate Navratri, Satyanarayan Pooja, Village Jatra and other festivals or programmes, the accused do not permit the complainant and his family members to participate in the same. They are not collecting any donations from the complainant. They are not on talking terms with the complainant. Accused do not maintain any relations or enter into any transactions with them. These state of affairs have continued after the death of complainants' father in 1999. It is lastly alleged that whenever anybody tries to maintain relations with the complainant accused are penalising that person. On account of boycott, it is not possible for the complainant as also his sisters to solemnise their marriage. The accused do not permit the complainant to participate in any Marriage function organised in the village. They are treated like untouchables. Complainant approached Supdt. of Police Alibag on 7th April, 2001 but no cognisance was taken of his complaint.

7. It is in these circumstances and making above allegations that the complaint was filed on 23rd July, 2001, alleging commission of offences punishable under section 7 of Civil Rights Act.

8. Upon complaint being lodged, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded verification statement. The petitioner Bhartinath Gavand examined himself and reiterated the contents of the complaint. He pointed out that the boycott is still continuing.

9. The Chief Judicial Magistrate called for a report under section 202 Criminal Procedure Code. Learned Judge perused the report, complaint, statement of complainant and after hearing complainant's Advocate directed that process be issued summoning the accused for offences punishable under section 7 of Civil Rights Act.

10. The respondents accused aggrieved by the above order of Chief Judicial Magistrate preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 138 of 2001 on 28th December, 2001, challenging issuance of process and summoning them. They contended that the complaint read as a whole do

Click Here to Read the rest of this document