CRR-2679-2017 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-2679-2017 (O&M) Jaspal Singh @ Jaspal Kumar @ Pamma ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents Sr. No. Particulars Details 1 The date when the judgment is reserved 24.08.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 10.09.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 10.09.2026 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full judgment is pronounced Full 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Prashant Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Ms. Gargi Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Pritish Goel, Advocate for respondent No. 2. MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. Through the present criminal revision petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala in Criminal Complaint bearing No. SC/147/2017, titled as State through Darshan Singh v. Jaspal Singh, filed under Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST Act’) and Sections 323 and 506 of MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.09.10 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2679-2017 (O&M) -2- IPC at Police Station Shambhu, whereby his application for discharge was dismissed and charges for commission of aforementioned offences were directed to be framed against him. The petitioner also seeks setting aside of the consequential charge-sheet dated 19.07.2017 and his discharge from the complaint. 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that respondent No.2-Darshan Singh has filed the aforementioned complaint against the petitioner and two other persons under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 and 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the SC/ST Act. As per the allegations in the complaint, on 27.07.2012 at about 6:30 p.m., respondent No.2 was going to take bath when he met the petitioner, who was operating the motor of the Panchayat water supply. Respondent No.2 asked him why drinking water was not reaching his house. On this, the petitioner became angry, used derogatory words referring to the caste of respondent No.2 (who belongs to SC community), caught him by his hair and gave him a fist blow on his mouth, causing injury to his teeth and bleeding. It was further alleged that thereafter other persons also reached the spot and beat respondent No.2. The petitioner is further alleged to have threatened respondent No.2 with dire consequences if he raised the issue of water supply in future. Respondent No.2 alleged that he was medically examined and an MLR was prepared. He also alleged that the police did not take appropriate action on his complaint, which led him to approach the Court. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajpura, after considering the complaint and the preliminary evidence, found sufficient material only against the petitioner and summoned him for offences under MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.09.10 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2679-2017 (O&M) -3- Sections 323 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the SC/ST Act. The complaint against the other two accused was dismissed. After appearance of the petitioner, the complaint was committed to the Court of Session. The petitioner moved an application dated 12.07.2017 seeking his discharge. He primarily relied upon the fact that the complaint was a counterblast to an earlier criminal case arising out of the same occurrence and also pleaded that he himself belonged to a Scheduled Caste and, therefore, the provisions of the SC/ST Act were not attracted against him. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide order dated 19.07.2017, dismissed the application for discharge. The learned Court noticed that the petitioner had relied upon a notification dated 27.12.2016 relating to Sainsi/Gadria being considered as a Scheduled Caste and that the certificate in favour of the petitioner had been issued thereafter. It was observed that since the occurrence was of 27.07.2012, the said aspect had no effect on the case. Finding a prima facie case, charges under Section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act and Sections 323 and 506 IPC were directed to be framed. The charge-sheet was accordingly framed on 19.07.2017. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Aggrieved against the said order, the present petition has been filed. 4. It is worth mentioning here that in the earlier case arising out of FIR No.114 dated 02.08.2012, respondent No.2 and his family members had faced trial for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 34 IPC. In the said FIR, respondent No.2 and the other accused were convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajpura vide judgment dated 11.06.2015 for offences under Sections 323/341 read with Section 34 IPC and were released on probation. The said judgment was thereafter upheld in appeal. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.09.10 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2679-2017 (O&M) -4- 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the learned trial Court ignored the fact that the said complaint was a counterblast to the earlier criminal case in which respondent No.2 and his family members had already been convicted. It is argued that the earlier judgments and the defence material relied upon by the petitioner clearly show the background in which the present complaint came to be filed. It is further argued that the petitioner himself belongs to the Sansi/Gadria caste, which is a Scheduled Caste, and therefore an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act is missing. In support, learned counsel relies upon the Scheduled Caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner in May 2017, which specifically records that he belongs to Sansi Gadria caste recognised as a Scheduled Caste under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court fell in error in treating the date of issuance of the certificate as the date on which the petitioner acquired the status of a Scheduled Caste. It is argued that the certificate records recognition of the caste under the 1950 Order and, therefore, the mere fact that the certificate was issued in 2017 cannot establish that the petitioner was not a Scheduled Caste on the date of occurrence. It is further argued that the material on record does not justify framing of charges under the SC/ST Act as well as under the aforesaid provisions of the IPC. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be accepted and the impugned order along with all the consequential proceedings are liable to be set aside. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.09.10 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2679-2017 (O&M) -5- 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel has argued that at the stage of framing of charge the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out from the material on record. It is argued that the complaint and the statements of the witnesses specifically attribute the caste- related insult, assault and threat to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot seek appreciation of the defence evidence or the earlier criminal case at this stage and that the disputed questions relating to the occurrence are matters for trial. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also opposed the petition and argued that the complaint contains specific allegations against the petitioner and the same are supported by the preliminary evidence and medical record. It is argued that the allegations of caste-based insult were made in the presence of other persons and, therefore, a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act is made out. It is further argued that the earlier criminal case and the defence taken therein cannot be used at this stage to discard the allegations in the present complaint. Hence, dismissal of the petition is prayed for. 9. This Court has heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 10. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence. The material is to be examined only to see whether the allegations, if taken at their face value, disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. So far as Sections 323 and 506 IPC are concerned, the complaint contains specific allegations that the petitioner gave a fist blow to respondent No.2 and thereafter threatened him with dire MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.09.10 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2679-2017 (O&M) -6- consequences. These allegations are supported by the preliminary evidence noticed by the learned Magistrate and by the medical material on record. The defence version and the effect of the earlier criminal case can appropriately be considered during trial. Therefore, no interference is called for with regard to the charges under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. 11. So far as the offence under Section 3(x) of the SC/STAct is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner himself belongs to a Scheduled Caste and, therefore, the said provision is not attracted. In support of the said plea, reliance has been placed upon the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner on 04.05.2017. The said certificate records that the petitioner belongs to Sansi Gadria caste, which has been recognised as a Scheduled Caste. However, the certificate itself came to be issued much after the date of occurrence, which is 27.07.2012. There is nothing else on the record to show that, as on the date of the alleged occurrence, the caste of the petitioner was recognised as a Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab. The notification dated 27.12.2016, referred to in the impugned order, also post dates the alleged occurrence. Thus, at this stage, the caste certificate issued in the year 2017 cannot be relied upon to conclude that the petitioner was a member of a Scheduled Caste on 27.07.2012. 12. It is also relevant that the learned Magistrate, after recording the preliminary evidence, had found sufficient material to summon the petitioner for the offences under Sections 323 and 506 IPC as well as under the relevant provisions of the SC/ST Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while considering the application for discharge, has also examined the material available on record and found a prima facie case against the petitioner. At the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.09.10 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2679-2017 (O&M) -7- stage of charge, the Court is not expected to finally determine the disputed question regarding the caste status of the petitioner or to undertake an elaborate examination of the evidence. Such matters can be appropriately considered after the parties lead their evidence. 13. The plea that the present complaint is a counterblast to the earlier FIR and that respondent No.2 and the other accused in that case were convicted and released on probation has also been noticed. However, the mere fact that both proceedings arise out of the same occurrence does not, by itself, render the subsequent complaint legally untenable. The earlier judgment may constitute a circumstance in favour of the petitioner but its effect upon the allegations made in the present complaint is a matter which can be properly examined on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. At this stage, the earlier proceedings cannot be treated as sufficient to wipe out the specific allegations made in the present complaint. Consequently, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 19.07.2017 warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. The learned trial Court has rightly declined to discharge the petitioner and has directed framing of charges on the basis of the material available on record. The present revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 10.09.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.09.10 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document