The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in relation to the grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Sudip Ahluwalia J.

In this petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Complaint Case No. 26 of 2017, dated 29.03.2014, pending in the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. Her case in the application is that she has been motivatedly framed out of pure vengeance by the complainant, who bore a personal grudge against her, in view of the complaint she had made against the complainant way back in 2011.

3. The background of the matter is that both the complainant and the present petitioner, at one time were working as teachers in the same school. The petitioner had made a complaint alleging that the present complainant's Degree was fake, on account of which she was not entitled to be appointed, nor retained in her Post. It is her further case that after she had made the complaint, the present complainant allegedly threatened her with serious consequences, including her implication in false cases under the Act. The petitioner, therefore, brought the fact of such threats to the notice of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, vide her Letter No. 3286-PD/12.09.2011 (Annexure P-2). It is her case that consequently the present complainant, out of vengeance, firstly approached the Police Authorities just two days later vide Complaint No. 3335-PD, dated 14.09.2011, against the present petitioner, in which the allegations constituting the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act were imputed to the petitioner. But the Police, after enquiry found no truth in the aforesaid complaint and accordingly submitted its Report to that effect on 27.10.2011 (Annexuer P-4).

4. Thereafter, the complainant is alleged to have motivatedly filed the present pending complaint in the Ld. Court below almost two and a half years later on 29.03.2014, in which again there was an inordinate delay regarding completion of the preliminary evidence, on the basis of which summons were issued upon the petitioner as late as on 22.09.2017. In this connection, it is the specific assertion of the petitioner that considering the old rivalry between the parties, and the grudge borne by the complainant on account of the challenge to her alleged fake Degree, which apparently resulted in her termination from Service in the month of November, 2014, the complainant had filed the complaint vindictively and to harass the present petitioner in her old age, just when she was on the verge of retirement.

5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by contending that the bar of Section 18 of the Act against such prayer is applicable in the present case. In this regard, decisions of the Supreme Court in "Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra", 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 761 and "Manju Devi v. Onkarjit Singh Ahluwalia @ Omkarjeet Singh", 2017 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 421.

6. On the contrary, the petitioner's side has placed the decisions of various Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, in "Raj Singh @ Raju v. State of Haryana" bearing CRM-M No. 16169 of 2016, "Gurbir Singh v. Paramjit Kaur and another" bearing CRM-M No. 14970 of 2015, "Chet Ram and another v. Smt. Mukesh and another" bearing CRM-M No. 41778 of 2015 and "Gurmel Singh v. State of Punjab", 2010 (9) R.C.R. (Criminal) 617, in which the benefit of anticipatory bail was extended to the petitioners even in cases under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

7. In addition, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has asserted that this is a fit case for intervention by this Court even under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in view of the decisions pronounced by the Delhi High Court in "Dr. R.K. Sangwan and another v. State" 2009 (112) DRJ 473 (DB), decided on 18.03.2009 and Karnataka High Court in "Sri N.B. Gungarakoppa and others v. Sta