IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

254 CRR No.1206 of 2019 (O&M)

Date of decision: 05.02.2025 Navneet Chauhan and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. A.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition is preferred against impugned order dated 02.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners under Sections 148 and 323, 325, 506, 427 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘the SC/ST Act’) in the case stemming from FIR No.39 dated 13.03.2017 at Police Station Shahzadpur, District Ambala.

2. Briefly, the facts, as alleged, are that on 13.03.2017, respondent No.2-complainant Phool Chand was going on his cycle and reached near one Pappu Rana’s farm around 1:30 PM, then the petitioners-accused rounded him up and attacked him with iron rods and swords. On receiving the said information, the family members of the respondent No.2 arrived at the spot but they were rounded up by the petitioners as well. Thereafter, the petitioners caused injuries to the respondent No.2 and his family as they belonged to the Harijan community. Respondent No.2 and his family raised alarm, the accused called respondent No.2 as ‘ded gitlow’ and fled from the spot along with their weapons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that respondent No.2 is affiliated with the Bahujan Samaj Party and is politically active. In fact, on the date of the alleged occurrence, the petitioners heard some noise and on inspection, found out that respondent No.2 and his accomplices were assaulting petitioner No.2- Narinder, with deadly weapons. A scuffle ensued and the petitioners were admitted to the hospital, as evidenced by MLRs available at Annexure P-2. In order to save themselves, FIR(supra) was registered at the behest of respondent No.2. The petitioners also gave a statement to the police but they did not register a cross version case in FIR(supra). Therefore, the petitioners were compelled to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Naraingarh, by way of a criminal complaint under Section 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 326, 506 IPC (Annexure P-4). Furthermore, in order to seek revenge, respondent No.2 sent his accomplices to assault the villagers in the night of 13.03.2017, which resulted in death of one Kanwar Pal and an FIR (Annexure P-5) has been registered in this regard as well. Further still, as a protest to registration of FIR(Annexure P-5), respondent No.2 and his accomplices damaged public property in Ambala City and also committed arson.

4. Learned counsel further contends that final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against some other persons and not the petitioners. The prosecution has filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of the petitioners and some other persons. However, during pendency of the same, a supplementary report was filed arraigning the petitioners as accused. Finally, the offence under the SC/ST Act is not made out against the petitioners as nowhere has it been stated who uttered the derogatory words. It is also unproven that the alleged casteist slurs were uttered in public view, with the intention to humiliate respondent No.2 for belonging to the SC community. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shashikant Sharma and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2024 AIR SC 193, Chandra Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan (2014) 8 SCC 340, this Court in Dr. Onkar Chander Jagpal and another vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another 2012(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 931 and Karamjit Singh Bhullar vs. State of Punjab and the Bombay High Court in Balu B. Galande vs. State of