HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3902/2021
1. Dilip Singh Gehlot S/o Shri Deva Ram, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Chhitar Niche, Kali Beri, Jodhpur.
2. Sanjay @ Yudhisthar S/o Shri Deva Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Chhitar Niche, Kali Beri, Jodhpur.
3. Anita W/o Shri Deva Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Chhitar Niche, Kali Beri, Jodhpur.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Superintendent Of Police, Pali.
2. Station House Officer, Police Station Khiwada, District Pali.
3. Vidu Devi W/o Shri Pappa Ram, R/o Chhitar Niche, Kali Beri, Jodhpur.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Shrimali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohd. Javed Gauri, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Order 15/02/2022 By way of this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR No. 143/2021 registered at the Police Station Soorsagar, Jodhpur City (West) for offences punishable under Sections 143, 427, 447 & 354 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Learned counsel Mr. Shrimali urges that there is no allegation in the FIR that the petitioners intentionally insulted or intimidated (Downloaded on 17/02/2022 at 08:29:27 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3902/2021] the complainant. There is a dispute between the parties over a plot and hence, the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be invoked. In support of this contention, Mr. Shrimali placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment passed in the case of Hitesh Verma vs State of Uttarakhand & Ors. reported in (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) and urged that the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and urged that the complainant has levelled clear allegations that the accused persons are trying to oust her from her house and with this objective, the petitioners called out the complainant and her relatives and then hurled caste based abuses and as such, the offences attributed to the accused are clearly covered by Sections 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel, learned Public Prosecutor and after going through the FIR and the material collected by the IO, I am of the firm opinion that the facts as existing in the present case are clearly distinguishable from that which was under discussion of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra). In that case, there was a civil dispute between the parties which was pending consideration before a civil Court whereas in the present case, the parties are not litigating over possession of and. The necessary ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(s) are clearly made out from the statement of the (Downloaded on 17/02/2022 at 08:29:27 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3902/2021] complainant. Thus, it is not a fit case warranting exercise of inherent powers conferred upon this Court by virtue of Section 482 CrPC so as to quash the impugned FIR. Hence, the misc. petition fails and is dismissed as such. The stay application is also dismissed.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J 74-Sudhir Asopa/-
(Downloaded on 17/02/2022 at 08:29:27 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)