AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nirmal Yadav, J.—Sri Lalit Tiwari, Advocate present for the applicant.
Heard.
This application has been moved u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant for challenging the order dated 03.06.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar vide which Respondents have not been summoned for the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989. However, they have been summoned for the offences punishable u/s 147, 452, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC.
Perusal of the impugned order shows that sufficient ground is given by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar for not summoning the Respondent for the offence punishable u/s 3(1/x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act.
From the complaint and statement of Sushmita Rai, complainant made u/s 200 of Cr.P.C., it is revealed that parties are involved in a dispute with regard to the tenancy of premises. Both parties are living in the same premises. The dispute did not take place on account of complainant belonging to Schedule caste and therefore no offence u/s 3(1/x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act is made out.
Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar and find no merit in the application, hence, the same is dismissed.