IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.456 of 2021 (O&M)

Dinesh Mongia ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent

1. The date when the judgment is reserved 17.04.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.04.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 27.04.2026 website

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced

5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable judgment, and reasons thereof CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate and Mr. Aamol Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused challenging the order dated 19.02.2021, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in case arising out of FIR No.36 dated 28.02.2019 registered under Sections 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 341 and

427 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Hansi, whereby charges under Sections 150, 323, 325, 341, 420 and 427 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (For short “SC/ST Act”) were framed as against the present petitioner and the co-accused.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by the complainant Suresh Kumar Chauhan posted as Executive Officer with Municipal Council, Hansi alleging that on the evening of 28.02.2019, he along with his niece Parveen was on his way to his house in his Innova car and when they reached near Village Gagan Gheri, a Swift car reached there from the opposite side and stopped in front of his vehicle. Five- six youths alighted from the said car. They were armed with iron rods. They started damaging the window panes of his vehicle, forcibly took him out of his vehicle and struck a blow with rod on his head. Then, the other persons also caused injuries with their respective rods. On clamour being raised by his niece, some persons reached there and then the assailants fled away. His niece had noted down the registration number of the vehicle of the assailants.

3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Since the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste community, offence under Section 3(2)(va) of SC&ST Act was also added. The petitioner and the co- accused were subsequently nominated as accused. The petitioner was arrested and was subsequently extended benefit of bail. After completion of necessary investigation proceedings, challan was presented against the petitioner and the co-accused and vide impugned order dated 19.02.2021, charges under the aforementioned sections had been framed as against the petitioner.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law qua him. He was not named in the FIR and was nominated as accused on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 25.03.2019, i.e. 25 days after the incident. The FIR was registered against unknown persons. There are no allegations that the petitioner had used any caste related words as against the complainant. Even it has not come on record that the petitioner knew the complainant in any manner whatsoever and was aware about his caste. His presence at the spot of occurrence has not at all been established. No specific overt act, injury or weapon has been attributed to him. As per the allegations, he was present along with the co-accused at the time of hatching conspiracy to assault the complainant. These allegations do not make out any case for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v)a) of SC/ST Act qua him. While framing charge under this section, the learned trial Court did not apply its judicious mi