I C Sharma v. State & Ors.

1. These three writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying / for setting aside the order dated 03.12.2012 directing registration of FIR in Complaint Case No.577/2/2012 titled as Manohar Singh & Anr. Vs. Satish Kumarand Ors. and quashing of FIRNo.542/2012, PS Mehrauli.

2. In all the three petitions, respondents No.2 and 3 are Manohar Singh and Dinesh Kumar. In W.P.(Crl.) No.473/2013, as per the office report, notice to the respondents no.2 and 3 could not be issued as process fee was not filed by the petitioner. However, in W.P.(Crl.) Nos. 397/2013 and 428/2013,"respondents No.2 and 3 have been duly served but none has appeared on behalf ofrespondents No.2 and 3.

3. Matters be taken up again.

PRATIBHA RANI, MAY 15, 2013 'st'

12.20 PM Present: As before.

1. None has appeared onbehalfofrespondents No.2 and 3 despite the matter being passed over.

2. Heard.

3. Status report perused. v

4. Petitioner I.C. Sharma in W.P.(Crl.) No.473/2013 and Mr.Ashish 3' Aggarwal, Advocate representing the petitioners in W.P.(Crl.) No. 397/2013 and 428/2013 submit that in view of the bar of Section 18 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the petitioners cannot apply for anticipatory bail. Referring to the conduct of respondents No.2 and 3, it is submitted that on the same set of facts, five complaints have been filed implicating the petitioners and in the given circumstances, the protection was earlier provided by this Court to the petitioners. It is furthei* submitted that even as per the status report, the matter is under investigation and State has also given the details of five complaints filed by respondent No.2 and 3 on identical facts against various accused persons, some of whom are petitionersbefore this Court.

4. Mr.Dayan Krishan, learned ASC representing State in W.P.(Cri.) No.397/2013 and Mr.Saleem Ahmed, learned ASC representing State in W.P.(Crl.) Nos.473/2013 and 428/2013 submit that during investigation about allegations with regard to caste based derogatory remarks which attracted Section 3 SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it was found that no independent eye witness was produced by Mr.Manohar Singh in the support of his allegations when the derogatory casting remarks were passed on him which is an essential ingredient to attract provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned ASC further submit that in the given circumstance, pending investigation into the allegations and that the petitioners have earlierjoined the investigation, they may be directed to join further investigation as andwhen required. They mayavail the legal remedy under the lawdepending upon the outcome of the investigation.

5. On behalfof petitioners, it is submitted that since the protection has already been provided, it may be continued. Further as the anticipatory bail / cannot be applied for in view ofthe specific bar under Section 18 ofSC/ST (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, which allegations are not substantiated as per the status report, State may be directed to give seven days' notice to the petitioner to avail thelegal remedy under the law.

6. In view ofthe submissions made above, the petitioners are directedto join the investigation as and when required by the SHO/IO concerned. Protection granted earlier to the petitioners shall continue till completion of the investigation and incase, their arrest is required inthe above noted FIR, seven days notice shall be given bythe10 to thepetitioners.

7. With above observations, all the three petitions stand disposed of.

8. Copy ofthe order be given dasti to learned counsel for all the parties.

PRATIBHA RANI, J MAY 15, 2013 'st'