The central legal point established in the judgment is that specific averments regarding the accused's knowledge of the complainant's scheduled caste status and the occurrence of insult or intimidation in public view are necessary for proceedings under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

M.M.S. Bedi, J. - The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the summoning order dated November 24, 2006 (annexure P-2) summoning the petitioners under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act), alongwith Sections 323 and 506 Indian Penal Code passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Meham.

2. As per the petition, respondent No. 2 had been arrested on the night of November 1, 2004 by Police party as he was indulging in gambling in a public street. The FIR No. 284 dated November 1, 2004 police Station Meham was registered against respondent No. 2. He was released on bail. Copy of the FIR has been placed on record as annexure P-3. Respondent No. 2 had instituted a complaint annexure P-1 on November 8, 2004 alleging that on the night intervening 1st and 2nd November 2004 at about 10.30/11.30 p.m., the petitioners visited the house of the complaint and assaulted him besides demanding money from him on the occasion of Diwali. He was abused in the name of his caste calling him "Kameena Khatik" and "Khatik Dhaid" Respondent No. 2 examined himself as CW1, Virender CW2. Pawan-CW3 the eye-witnesses and PW4 Dr. Ravinder Ahlawat, to substantiate the allegations in the complaint. On the basis of preliminary evidence, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Meham, vide order dated November 24, 2006 summoned the petitioners under Sections 323, 506 Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act.

3. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complaint is a counter- blast to the FIR registered against respondent No. 2 and that no offence is made out and the complaint is liable to be quashed having been filed with mala fide intentions by placing reliance on State of Haryana Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and another, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, wherein the parameters for exercising jurisdiction for quashing of criminal complaint or FIR have been laid down. Counsel further submits that offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act is not made out against the petitioners as the necessary ingredients of offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act is not made out on the basis of the averments in the complaint. He was argued that there is no specific averment in the complaint that the petitioners had a knowledge that the complaint belong to scheduled caste. Merely calling respondent No. 2 "Khatik" is not sufficient enough to attract the penal provisions of Section (3) (1) (x) of the Section 3(1) (x) of the Act reads as follows :-

"3 Punishments for offences of atrocities :- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste a Scheduled Tribe -

XXX XXX XXX

x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.

XXX XXX XXX

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine."

4. For attracting punishment under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, the following necessary ingredients should be alleged and established :-

i) that the accused is not a member of Scheduled a Caste or Scheduled tribe; complainant is member of Scheduled Caste/tribe;

ii) accused had intentionally insulted or intimidated a member of scheduled tribe;

iii) the accused had an intention to humiliate a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and

iv) the act of intentionally insult or intimidation should be in a place within public view.

5. It has been repeatedly held by this Court as well as High Courts that unless and until there is a specific averment in the complaint that accused had knowledge that the complainant belong to scheduled caste, the accused cannot be prosecuted. In this context reference can be made to Chaman Lal Goyal v. Kaur Singh, 2008(1) RCR(Crl.) 377. Similar is the ratio of the judgment of Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2002 (4) RCR (Crl.) 24