The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of specific averments regarding the accused's knowledge of the complainant's caste and the public view element for certain offences, emphasizing the need for strict construction of the provisions of the SC & ST Act.

MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

1. Petitioner Hari Kishan Garg has preferred this criminal revision to challenge the order dated 16.8.2012 passed by Special Judge, Jind in Sessions Case No.2 dated 4.6.2012, arising out of FIR No.832 dated 29.11.2010, registered under Sections 174, 186, 189 IPC and Section 3 of SC & ST Act, Police Station City Jind, whereby he was ordered to be charge-sheeted under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act (for short 'SC & ST Act') and Section 186/189 of the IPC.

2. Brief facts leading to the present revision petition are that Anuj Garg son of Hari Kishan Garg was married to Sweety daughter of Madan Lal Goyal on 7.12.2009. However, the relations between them got strained further resulting into lodging of complaint by Sweety wife of Anuj Garg through an application dated 22.10.2010. The said application was marked to Incharge, Women Cell for verification of facts and immediate necessary action by the Superintendent of Police, Jind on the same day. It was Inspector Bishni Devi who was handling the complaint and issued notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to Anuj Garg, his parents and brother, namely, Gaurav son of Hari Kishan Garg. As per notice dated 23.10.2010, they were called on 25.10.2010 at 10.00 a.m. in her office. On the said day, both the parties, i.e. Anuj Garg, his parents and brother as well as complainant Sweety, her parents and relatives attended the office of Incharge, Women Cell, Jind. However, the matter could not be finalized on that date. Accordingly, the parties were again directed by Inspector Bishni Devi to attend her office on 15.11.2010.

3. On 11.11.2010, the Superintendent of Police, Jind marked the case to the Protection Officer with the remarks to verify the facts and take necessary action. The said complaint dated 22.10.2010 along with endorsements is Annexure P-1. On 15.11.2010, complainant Sweety, her parents and relatives were present in the office of Protection Officer. However, the other side, i.e. Anuj Garg and his parents did not come for further proceedings. After waiting for sometime, the Protection Officer, namely, Krishna Devi (complainant) contacted the petitioner on his mobile phone No.09888562118. In response, the petitioner asked as to who was speaking on the other side, and then respondent No.2 apprised him that she is the Protection Officer. At that time, petitioner Hari Kishan Garg responded in anger saying, "sun meri baat meri madam se baat ho chuki hai". Thereafter, the complainant again redialed and told him that the matter was fixed for 15.11.2010 for counselling and the girl has already reached, but they have not come. The complainant again asked if it was Hari Kishan speaking from Panchkula. According to the complainant, at this stage, the accused became furious and uttered "tu samajhati kya ho, dedhni dobara phone karne ki koshish mat karna mera High Court mein case chal raha hai, zyada mera dimag kharab karne ki koshish mat karna". It is this conversation which according to complainant allegedly amounts to commission of offence punishable under Section 3 of the SC & ST Act and Section 186/189 IPC. According to the complainant, when this conversation took place, speaker of her phone was 'On' and the utterances made by the accused were heard by Telu Ram S/o Mangal, Jang Bahadur S/o Ram Lal, Madan Lal S/o Nohar Chand, Ishwar Chand. On these allegations, a complaint dated 15.11.2010 was given by respondent No.2, whereupon FIR No.832 dated 29.11.2010 under Sections 174, 186, 189 IPC and Section 3 of SC & ST Act was registered at Police Station City Jind (Annexure P-5).

4. The petitioner had previously filed CRM-M-2373 of 2012 for quashing of the FIR, however, the same was withdrawn with an object to raise all the pleas before the Court at the time of framing of the charges.

5. A final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted before the before the Special Court. At that stage, the Special Court vide order dated 16.8.2012, proceed