Under sc/st act
sanjeev soni
(Querist) 23 September 2014
This query is : Resolved
two official colleagues belonging to category- lodged FIR against me under section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST Act ,1989 which is false rather. They made complaint that I told cast related words publicly. during inquiry haled by the ASP statement given by them, that she never told such words to us but after 7 days they changed their statement and under 164 their statement have been taken in front of Chief Judicial magistrate by the police with some Witness,without submitting Challan is it possible.
Besides this it has come to my knowledge that a judgement have been given by the Hon'ble Supreme court that any one can say publicly above mention words for himself but it should not be spoken to an individual who relates to CS/ST category kindly suggest me as it is the Ques. of my carrier please.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 23 September 2014
You say "some official colleagues ......... lodged FIR". How many of your colleagues lodged the FIR.
sanjeev soni
(Querist) 23 September 2014
two official colleagues with one or more wittnesses
sanjeev soni
(Querist) 23 September 2014
two official colleagues belonging to category- lodged FIR against me under section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST Act ,1989 which is false rather. They made complaint that I told cast related words publicly. during inquiry haled by the ASP statement given by them, that she never told such words to us but after 7 days they changed their statement and under 164 their statement have been taken in front of Chief Judicial magistrate by the police with some Witness,without submitting Challan is it possible.
Besides this it has come to my knowledge that a judgement have been given by the Hon'ble Supreme court that any one can say publicly above mention words for himself but it should not be spoken to an individual who relates to CS/ST category kindly suggest me as it is the Ques. of my carrier please. i am a working lady in HPSEB ltd.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 23 September 2014
You are a pharmacist, but, you claim that you are working in HP EB Ltd. How is it possible?
It seems that you are well versed with SC ST Act, cr.p.c., Police Act and Supreme court judgements.
It is not necessary that the 164 statement should be recorded by the magistrate, only at the request of the police. Any witness can voluntarily give evidence. So, Challan is not mandatory for recording 164 statement.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 24 September 2014
Agree with the expert Advocate. Arunagiri.
P. Venu
(Expert) 24 September 2014
Please state the simple facts devoid of your opinions and/or suggestions . We maybe able to suggest some solution.
sanjeev soni
(Querist) 24 September 2014
This episode happens with my wife and she is working in HPSEBL, kindly suggest us it is the Ques. of her carrier .Besides this it has come to my knowledge that a judgment have been given by the Hon'ble Supreme court that any one can say publicly above mention words for himself but it should not be spoken to an individual who relates to CS/ST category. Sir in case there is such judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court kindly convey me with judgment orders No . It is pertinent to mention here that they people are going to missus of Law.
sanjeev soni
(Querist) 24 September 2014
This episode happens with my wife and she is working in HPSEBL, kindly suggest us it is the Ques. of her carrier .Besides this it has come to my knowledge that a judgment have been given by the Hon'ble Supreme court that any one can say publicly above mention words for himself but it should not be spoken to an individual who relates to CS/ST category. Sir in case there is such judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court kindly convey me with judgment orders No . It is pertinent to mention here that they people are going to missus of Law.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 24 September 2014
Previously you said it happened to you, now you say that it happened to your wife.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate 
(Expert) 01 October 2014
This seems to be hypothetical or an academic query. The author may clarify the details from his lawyer on the local issues, as far as the supreme court judgement, let him clarify from the person informed him about this. No sincerity in his query, contradicts from one post to another.
