Pandit Jai Narain And ORS v. Ramesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.7854 of 2015 Date of Decision: 20.04.2015 Pandit Jai Narain & others ......Petitioners

Versus

Ramesh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Present: Mr. A.S. Ghangas, Advocate for the petitioners.

None for the respondent.

**** 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J (ORAL) As per office report, notice issued to respondent has been received back duly served, but none has appeared on behalf of respondent/complainant.

On 12.03.2015, this Court passed the following order: "Learned counsel for the petitioners states that a bare perusal of the complaint itself does not fulfill the ingredients of the offence inasmuch as that there is no mention in the entire complaint whether petitioners knew that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste. Bara is the bone of contention between the parties right from the very beginning. A civil suit for permanent injunction was SACHIN SHARMA 2015.04.21 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M No.7854 of 2015 filed by the complainant, which was dismissed by the trial Court on 14.12.2011 and the judgment of the trial Court was affirmed by the lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 28.7.2012. Learned counsel relies upon para No.6 of the complaint to contend that the incident dated 24.10.2008 has been relied by the complainant for filing the present complaint, but the para in question does not involve any incriminating occurrence by the petitioners and, therefore, the complainant has concealed the genesis of the occurrence and the ingredients of offence under Section 3 (1) (ii), (v), (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have not been fulfilled.

Notice of motion for 20.4.2015.

Petitioners are directed to appear before the trial Court on or before 18.3.2015. In the event of their appearance before the trial Court, trial Court shall admit the petitioners on interim bail subject to its satisfaction." In pursuance to the aforesaid order, petitioner appeared before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat on 17.03.2015. The Magistrate has granted interim bail to the petitioner after accepting the bail bonds and surety bonds.

In view of aforesaid, the interim protection granted to the petitioner, vide order dated 12.03.2015, is made absolute. However, petitioner would keep on appearing before the trial Court regularly. Disposed of.

20.04.2015 [RAJ MOHAN SINGH] sachin JUDGE SACHIN SHARMA 2015.04.21 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh