Judgment:
CRM-M-19998-2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19998-2014 (O&M) Date of decision : 05.06.2014 Bittu Virdi @ Satinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus Sushma @ Suman ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Navkiran Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in criminal complaint No.RBT-30-7964 dated 23.04.2013, titled as 'Sushma @ Suman versus Bittu Virdhi”.
(Annexure P-6).under Section 3(10) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act') and Sections 323, 324, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, 'the IPC').pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Amritsar.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complainant is encroacher upon the land allotted to the petitioner by the Government authorities.
In order to protect her interests, she is misusing the process of the Court.
The complaint is motivated and Sethi Atul 2014.06.06 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-19998-2014 -2- without any substance.
Heard.
In order to substantiate her case, the complainant appeared as CW-1, and reiterated the allegations made in the complaint, along with CW-2, Ashok Kumar and CW-3, Rani w/o Sampuran Singh.
From the perusal of the preliminary evidence on record, it cannot be said that the case against the petitioner under the Act is not made out.
In Vilas Pandurang Pawar and another versus State of Maharashtra and other, AIR2012SC316 Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:- “8.
Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates a bar for invoking Section 438 of the Code.
However, a duty is cast on the court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence Under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act has been prima facie made out.
In other words, if there is a specific averment in the complaint, namely, insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate by calling with caste name, the accused persons are not entitled to anticipatory bail.”
.
Therefore, no case for grant of relief sought is made out.
Dismissed.
05.06.2014 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Sethi Atul 2014.06.06 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh