Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dilip Singh Gehlot vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 February, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
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
(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
(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/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
