The central legal point established in the judgment is that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act requires intentional insult or intimidation with the intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, and the mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence.

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of the order dated 15.02.2010 passed by the Court of learned SDJM, Naraingarh (P9) adding the offence under Section 3/4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 under the provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C as well as order dated 15.02.2010 committing the case to the Court of Sessions for trial under the provisions of Section 323 Cr.P.C for afresh trial in case FIR No. 178 dated 01.12.2003 under Sections 325, 323, 326, 452, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station Naraingarh.

2. Facts, in short, are that a cross fight took place in the area of police Station Naraingarh on 30.11.2003 at 1.30 pm, in which, Ram Lal (from the side of now complainant party) and Jai Parkash (petitioner No. 1) from the accused party received injuries. The statement of Ram Lal was recorded by ASI Deepak Kumar on 01.12.2003 at 12.00 pm prima facie disclosing the offence under section 323, 452, 506, 34 IPC against the accused party i.e. petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 on the basis of which the present case was registered vide FIR No. 178 dated 01.12.2003. Since during the course of same occurrence, Jai Parkash (petitioner No. 1) also received grievous injury as per MLR No. SKS/03/09 dated 30.11.2003, conducted at General Hospital, Naraingarh and after X-ray examination, injury was declared as grievous disclosing prima facie offence under Section 325, 323, 34 IPC against Ram Lal complainant on the basis of the statement made by Jai Parkash before ASI Deepak Kumar at G. H Naraingarh Rapat No. 12 dated 30.11.2003 was incorporated with regard to the statement of Jai Parkash disclosing the offence under Section 325, 323, 34 IPC against the complainant party. However, no separate FIR was registered against the complainant party but investigation was carried out in the same FIR No. 178 being a cross version of the incident. The police prepared the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C for offences under Section 325, 323 IPC against Ram Lal complainant dated 14.03.2004 which was presented in the Court on 23.03.2004. Similarly, the police presented the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C against the petitioners for offences under Section 326, 325, 323, 452, 506, 34 IPC, vide challan sheet dated 14.03.2004 i.e. of the same date. The learned Trial Court proceeded to frame charge for offences under Sections 326, 325, 323, 506, 34 IPC against the petitioners after hearing the prosecution as well as the complainant on the question of charge. Similarly, in the cross case, charges under Sections 325, 323 IPC was framed against Ram Lal complainant for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Jai Parkash-petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C for amendment of the charge. The trial Court vide order dated 15.02.2010 framed the charges under Section ¾ of SC/ST Act and in exercise of the power under the provisions of Section 323 Cr.P.C committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court i.e. the District and Sessions Judge, Ambala.

3. While praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 15.02.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Ram Lal had approached this High Court vide CRM M 11305 of 2004 by way of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for addition of offence punishable under the provisions of SC/ST Act. However, the aforesaid petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.04.2004 with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Ambala to consider the application dated 11.12.2003 and to dispose of the same one way or the other in accordance with law. The Superintendent of Police, Ambala, thus, carried out an independent inquiry with regard to addition of offence punishable under the provisions of SC/ST Act and came to the conclusion that in compliance of the order dated 23.04.2004 passed by this High Court an inquiry was conducted with regard to the addition of offences under the provisions of SC/ST Act. However, the prov