IMPORTANT POINT
Special Court under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has no jurisdiction to try case under the Act without accused having been committed to act for trial.

JUDGMENT

M.L. Koul, J.- Mrs. Jyoti Arora, former Registrar of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra (hereafter to be called as the accused) is seeking the indulgence of this Court within the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of a criminal complaint Annexure P-1 filed by respondent No. 2 Ex.- Subedar Nar Singh (hereinafter to be called as the complainant) against the accused pending disposal in the Court of Shri B.P. Jindal, learned Special Judge, Kurukshetra, who has taken cognizance against the accused for trial within Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be called as the Act.)

2. Mr. Anupam Gupta, learned counsel for the accused argued that the complainant has remained deliberately silent to narrate the date in his complaint when atrocious words were used by the accused against the complainant saying that “Chuhara Chamar Bharti Ho Gai hain. Thaila bhar Kar Noton ke le Jate hain. Karte Dharte Kuch nahin Tum Jate Ho Ya KHaka mar ke Nikalwaun. Tum jahan ke Ho Wahin Rahoge. Aise Hi Tum Ho. Auise he Tumhara General Tha Aaur Aisa He Col. Hai.”

3. Rightly so, for his insubordination and dereliction of duty on that date the complainant was placed under suspension and on enquiry punished as well. However, such a date finds mention in the summoning order when allegedly such words were used by the accused against the complainant who went to report the matter to the accused that 50 percent of the students of LL.B. Final Year had walked out of the examination nation ball as most of the questions m the question paper were out of the prescribed syllabus. In return the Registrar scolded him and used the said words. It is quite strange that atrocity and harassment was caused to the complainant by the accused on 9-6-1995 but he remained silent about it for 8 months till about the incident an enquiry had taken place against him and he was penalised with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and was also ordered not to be paid anything more than subsistence allowance for the period he remained under suspension.

4. In this regard. I went through the presummoning evidence recorded by the Trial Court and on thoughtful consideration it is evidently found that both the eyewitnesses Col. K.D.P. Singh and Satish Kumar were not at all present in the office when the so called incident took place. They have heard about it outside the office and therefore being the hearsay witnesses could, not-be said to be the direct witnesses to the occurrence. One is a contractor and

the other is a Chief Security Officer in the University. Maybe they have their own axe to grind against the accused and for that purpose stood witnesses about an incident which never took place in their presence and remained silent for eight months till the complaint was filed in the Court. Even otherwise the allegations are inherently improbable and absurd as the complainant was charge-sheeted on that date for dereliction of his duty and on proper enquiry was pemilised as well. Therefore, he managed a 'complaint to be lodged against the accused after he was punished. The law cannot ordinarily be distilled, from justice and learned Special Judge ought to have examined the issue with great care and caution before summoning the accused who is an IAS officer and as Registrar of the Institution was supposed to control the affairs of the Institution.

5. There is inordinate delay in filing such a complaint which appears to be pre-meditated filed after due thought and consideration to take revenge against the accused and to make her stand in the dock for the complainant on enquiry about the incident was penalised and his two increments were stopped on 15-2-1996 for dereliction of his duty. Soon after he was penalised on 15-2-1996 he arranged to file the present complaint against the accused on 22-2-1996. Although the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 9-6-1995