SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(P&H) 586

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
Dr. Onkar Chander Jagpal and another - Petitioners
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh and another - Respondents
Criminal Misc. No. M-54307 of 2006.
Decided On : 23 January, 2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Guatam Kaile for Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Sukhbir Singh Mattewal for Mr. P.S. Thiara, Advocates.

The judgment establishes the importance of specific mention of essential elements in complaints and FIRs under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act, emphasizing the need for strict construction of the Act's provisions.

Headnote:

Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act - Property Dispute - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974 - Section 12 - FIR quashed - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974, Section 12] - The court discussed the allegations and the legal provisions under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act, emphasizing the essential ingredients of the offence and the need for specific mention of these elements in the complaint and FIR. The court highlighted the strict construction of the Act's provisions and the absence of intention to insult or intimidate in public view, leading to the quashing of the FIR.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners claimed to be residing in a house for 35 years and were involved in a property dispute with the complainant. The complainant lodged a complaint under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act, alleging insults and intimidation by the petitioners.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the essential ingredients of the offence under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act were not met, as the complaint did not specifically mention the elements required to establish the offence. The court emphasized the absence of intention to insult or intimidate in public view and quashed the FIR.

Issues: The issues involved the validity of the complaint under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act, the essential ingredients of the offence, and the misuse of criminal law in a property dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for specific mention of essential elements in the complaint and FIR under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act. It highlighted the strict construction of the Act's provisions and the absence of intention to insult or intimidate in public view as grounds for quashing the FIR.

Final Decision: The court accepted the petition, quashed the FIR, and discharged the petitioners from the criminal case.

JUDGMENT

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioners Dr. Onkar Chander Jagpal and his wife Smt. Adarsh Jagpal claimed that they are residing in house, bearing No. 1318, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh for the last about 35 years. Complainant Sohini Chaudhary respondent No. 2 (for brevity "the complainant"), daughter of Ram Lubhaya Chaudhary, desired to purchase the said house from the very beginning. Since the petitioners have purchased 50% share of the house in question from Natinder Dhillon, so, the complainant and her other family members became inimical and started harassing them on false and frivolous grounds.

2. Having purchased the half of the portion of the indicated house petitioner No. 1 Dr. Onkar Chander Jagpal filed an application against Smt. Santosh Chaudhary wife of Ram Lubhaya (mother of the complainant), Smt. Sushil wife of H.S. Dhillon and Smt. Kamlesh wife of Sohan Lal under Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh), Act, 1974, which was accepted and the respondents were directed to carry out the necessary repairs, failing which petitioner No. 1 was given the liberty to get the repairs carried out, by the Rent Controller, by virtue of order dated 4.12.1998 (Annexure P2). The prolonged civil & criminal litigation between the parties is also clear from the orders dated 15.6.1999 (Annexure P3), dated 19.2.2001 (Annexure P4), enquiry report (Annexure P5), copies of letters to Inspector General of Police (IG) dated 12.6.2006 (Annexures P6 & P8) and letter to XEN (Annexure P7).

3. Meanwhile, the complainant made a complaint against the petitioners-accused (which formed the basis of FIR Annexure P1), with the following allegations :-

"Sir, I am residing with my family at house No. 1320, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh for the last many years and in house No. 1318, Sector 15-B where on the top floor, we and our house care taker stays and this portion of the house belongs to us. Onkar Chander Jagpal is residing there. Our houses are on the main road and because of that we park our cars on the front side of both of the houses and Onkar Chander Jagpal parks his car at the backside of the house. The house was owned by our grandmother and we are having tenancy dispute pending in Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court. During the pendency of the suit our grandmother expired. And for this reason Onkar Chander Jagpal always keep grudge in his mind and always looks for an opportunity to humiliate me and my family in public. On 29.6.2006 at about 6 PM, police personnels of Chandigarh Police came to the house where I stay alongwith my parents and my two elder sisters (Namita and Mala) in house No. 1320 Sector 15-B, Chandigarh, they told me that he has got a complaint made by Onkar Chander Jagpal regarding parking of a vehicle. When I told police personnels that the house belongs to me and my three sisters and the vehicle also belongs to our family, the police personnel went away and when I came outside and reached House No. 1318, Sector 15-B, in the verandah Onkar Chander Jagpal, got agitated and started abusing me and my family, his wife was also standing there, who immediately started using abusing and filthy language against me and my family members. When I asked them to behave properly as we belong to a respectable and responsible family, Onkar Chander Jagpal, shouted me "Chura - Chammar neich jati de kute log". If you ever park the vehicle again, I have got links with the goondas and also have connections with high police officials and can get a false case registered against me and further threatened that he can get me liquidated so that in future I may not be able to see any Chammar in the locality. On hearing loud voices, my cousin brother Vinod Chaudhary who was present in my house came there and tried to



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top