IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :09.09.2025 Pronounced on: 16.09.2025 Vipin Gupta ......Petitioner Versus Sunderpal @ Surinder Pal ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by: Mr.Abhijeet Partap, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the respondent.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

Challenge in this revision petition is the summoning order dated

15.07.2014 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, whereby the petitioner has summoned to face trail as an accused.

2. The background of the above mentioned case is that the respondent filed a compliant alleging the commission of an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the petitioner and his wife. However, the learned trial Court by virtue of order, impugned in this petition, took cognizance against the petitioner only and observed that no case against the wife of petitioner is made out.

3. Aggrieved of the above mentioned order the petitioner preferred a revision petition in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.

However, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner did not find favour and the same has been dismissed by virtue of order dated 04.02.2015.

4. Succinctly, the allegations made by the respondent-complainant against the petitioner-accused in his complaint are that petitioner and respondent were known to each other and the petitioner-accused who belongs to a higher caste was aware of the fact that respondent-complainant belongs to a scheduled caste. It has been further alleged by the respondent-complainant that they were carrying a joint business for the last more than one year, but later on there was some issue in the above mentioned business and, therefore, they suffered huge losses and ultimately decided to part ways. As per respondent-complainant when the accounts were settled it was found that a sum of Rs.5,54,000/- of the respondent-complainant was due towards petitioner-accused.

5. It has been further alleged by the respondent-complainant that on 20.08.2013, he was called by the petitioner-accused in his office to settle the accounts and when he (respondent-complainant) went to the office of petitioner-accused, the petitioner-accused thrashed him. According to respondent-complainant the petitioner-accused had beaten him up with the help of slaps and feast blows, and when he (respondent-complainant) raised hue and cry for help, Gurjeet Singh and Mewa Singh arrived on the spot but in their presence also the petitioner-accused used abusive language in the name of caste of the respondent-complainant. According to respondent-complainant when the petitioner-accused was using derogatory words in the name of caste of the respondent-complainant number of individuals present in the surrounding area also gathered on the spot and in their presence, too, abusive language in the name of caste of the respondent-complainant, was used.

6. Since on the basis of above mentioned complaint cognizance against the petitioner-accused has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhaiana, and the endeavour of petitioner to challenge the above mentioned summoning order, by way of revision, in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed, the petitioner-accused has resorted to instant petition by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner-accused, hereinafter being referred as petitioner only on the ground that the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant, hereinafter being referred as respondent only, under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is nothing but utter misuse of process of law and that, in fact, no incident as alleged in the complaint had taken place. According to petitioner, the families of petitioner and responde