[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dinesh Mongia vs State Of Haryana on 27 April, 2026
CRR No.456 of 2021
-1-
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 mind. Even the ingredients of other offences for commission of which
he has been chargesheeted, are not attracted. With these broad submissions, it
is argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, the petition deserves
to be accepted and the petitioner deserves to be discharged of the offences for
which he has been charge sheeted.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that there are serious
and specific allegations against the petitioner. He was named in the
supplementary statement of the complainant. He had hatched conspiracy with
the co-accused to cause injuries to the complainant by assaulting him. The
complainant being a member of the scheduled caste community and being
assaulted in pursuance of conspiracy hatched by the petitioner and the co-
accused, the ingredients in commission of offence punishable under Section 3
(2)(va) as well as under different provisions of Indian Penal Code are certainly
attracted in this case. The learned trial Court has passed a well reasoned order
which does not require any interference. It is, therefore, argued that the petition
does not deserve to be allowed.
6. This Court has heard the rival submissions.
7. As per the allegations, complainant Suresh Kumar Chauhan was
posted as Executive Officer at Municipal Council, Hansi and while performing
his official duties, had got removed a kiosk (khokha) of meat erected on the
public land and had got the same vacated from accused Jitender @ Happy. The
accused Jitender, who was offended due to the said fact, had hatched a
conspiracy with the co-accused including the present petitioner, to take revenge
from the complainant and in pursuance thereof, on 28.02.2019, accused
Jitender @ Happy along with co-accused Bansi, Bachi etc. had assaulted the
complainant. From the allegations in the FIR itself, it has been reflected that
the petitioner was not present at the spot of occurrence and was not amongst
the persons who had actually assaulted the complainant. However, nonetheless,
the allegations against him prima facie make out a case for hatching conspiracy
for commission of offences of wrongfully restraining the complainant and
voluntarily causing simple as well as grievous injuries to him. The main thrust
of the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner has been that the ingredients
of offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act are missing and hence, no
charge under this section could be framed against him. It is also the stand of the
petitioner that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner knew
about the fact that the complainant was a member of the scheduled caste
community, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST
Act.
8. As per Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, any person who
commits any offence specified in the schedule, against a person or property
while knowing that such person is a member of scheduled caste or such
property belongs to such member, is liable for the same punishment as specified
in IPC for such offence. Meaning thereby that if an accused is alleged to have
committed an offence punishable under the provisions of IPC (since repealed)
while knowing that the victim was member of scheduled caste community, then
such accused is liable for the same punishment as mentioned in this offence. In
the instant case, apart from the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST
Act, the petitioner has been chargesheeted for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 150, 323, 325, 341, 420 and 427 read with Sections
34 and 120-B of IPC. The offences under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC are
scheduled offences under the SC/ST Act. The same with the aid of Section
120-B of IPC are prima facie shown to be attracted against the petitioner.
9. So far as the fact as to whether the petitioner knew that the
complainant was a member of the scheduled caste community or not is
concerned, it is a matter of trial and it is only on thorough assessment of the
evidence to be produced before the learned trial Court that any final conclusion
can be drawn as to this effect. The arguments that there is no evidence to show
that the petitioner had insulted the complainant, has no force as the requirement
of Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act is not the proof of the same but is that
there must be a prima facie case to prove that either of the scheduled offences
is committed by the person accused. In view of the discussion made to the effect
that the petitioner is prima facie proved to have hatched a conspiracy to commit
the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC read with Section
120-B of IPC along with the co-accused, apart from these offences, the
ingredients of Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST are also prima facie attracted in
this case. Accordingly, no ground has been made out to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. As a consequence, the present
petition is dismissed.
(MANISHA BATRA)
27.04.2026 JUDGE
Manju/Waseem R. Ansari
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
