Criminal Misc. No.422-MA of 2007 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
Criminal Misc. No.422-MA of 2007
Date of Decision:28.01.2009
Malkiat Singh
.....Applicant
Vs.
Nachattar Singh and another
.....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Raman Mohinder, Advocate for the respondents.
****
JUDGMENT
HARBANS LAL, J.
This application has been moved by Malkiat Singh under
Section 378(4) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C for grant of permission to
file the appeal against judgment dated 20.2.2007 passed by the Court of
learned Special Judge, Faridkot, whereby he dismissed the complaint
bearing caption `State v. Nachatar Singh and another.’
The facts in brief are that Malkiat Singh complainant belongs to
a scheduled caste. There is a passage adjoining his house. The accused
have tried to decrease such passage by emerging the same with their own
land. On 24.11.2001, various respected persons from his village gathered in
his house in order to request the accused to decrease the passage. When
they were discussing the matter, meanwhile, the accused reached there.
Nachattar Singh accused was empty handed. Charanjit Singh accused was
armed with gandasa. They both started abusing the complainant and tried to
beat him. The respectables who had already massed there saved him from
Criminal Misc. No.422-MA of 2007 -2-
the accused. The accused Charanjit Singh has said to the complainant
“katya chuharia we will teach you a lesson for not allowing them to cut the
passage as we would get the persons like you out of the village and no body
can cause any harm to us.” When he requested the accused to desist from
uttering such derogatory words then the accused again said “if we should
not say you kutta chuhra, what we would say you, you are spoiling our
sacred and smell is coming out of you.” The accused by entering into his
house had humiliated the complainant by uttering these words to a great
extent. The matter was reported to the Police Station Sadiq, but of no avail.
The accused were charged under Section 3(X) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 452 of IPC to
which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt
against the accused, the complainant examined his wife Gurjit Kaur PW2,
Veer Singh PW3 in addition to his own statement as PW1. On close of the
prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the
accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the
prosecution evidence against them and pleaded innocence. They put forth
that the complainant has illegally encroached the public street and they were
stopping him from doing so. So, he filed this case against them. In their
defence, they examined DW1 Daljit Singh and DW2 Gurmail Kaur. After
hearing the learned counsel for the complainant, the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining
the evidence on record, the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint.
Feeling aggrieved therewith, he has moved this application for grant of
leave to appeal against the judgment dated 20.2.2007.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides
Criminal Misc. No.422-MA of 2007 -3-
perusing the record with due care and circumspection.
There is a delay of as many as 5 days in lodging the complaint.
Such delay has not been explained by the prosecution. Gurjit Kaur PW2
wife of the complainant was bound to toe line with her husband. The
learned trial Court has observed that “this is admitted fact between the
parties that there is a dispute of passage between the parties and this passage
is situated in front of the house of the witnesses and the said passage is
owned by the accused and the complainant wants to encroach upon this
passage, which the accused persons do not allow.” In view of such a
situation, it is very difficult to assume the taking place of the alleged
occurrence. May be that, to exert pressure upon the accused party, the
complaint was filed. It is also observed by the learned trial Court that the
statements of the examined prosecution witnesses are full of discrepancies
and are inconsistent and they all are interested witnesses. DW1 Daljit
Singh, the then Sarpanch as well as DW2 Gurmail Kaur, the Member
Panchayat are in unison on the point that the alleged occurrence did not take
place. The learned trial Court has observed that “it is proved on the record
that on 21.10.2000, the meeting of the Gram Panchayat was convened in
which the matter was settled between the parties and that out of grudge
because of the above said passage, the present complaint has been filed.”
To my mind, palpably, no contrary view can be taken to these observations.
Consequently, no case is made out for grant of leave to appeal against the
judgment dated 20.2.2007. Hence, this application is dismissed.
January 28, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL )
renu JUDGE
Criminal Misc. No.422-MA of 2007 -4-
Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No