IMPORTANT POINT
An FIR under the SC/ST Act must include specific allegations of caste-based abuse; absence of such allegations can lead to quashing of the FIR.

ORDER :

(K. Manmadha Rao, J.) :

This writ petition is filed calling for the records relating to issuance of FIR No.48 of 2016, dated 05.09.2016 from the file of the SHO, Vedurukuppam P.S. (R4) and after perusal of the same, quash the impugned FIR dated 05.09.2016 by declaring it as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are the absolute owners of the landed property of total extent of Ac 3.72 cents i.e., extent Ac.1.52 cents in Sy.No.209/2, Ac 1.23 cents in Sy.No.277/5 and Ac 0.97 cents in Sy.No.277/17 situated in Mambedu Village, Accounts, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. The said lands along with certain other lands of the petitioners, total extent Ac 6.64 cents were leased out in favour of one Sri P.Adinarayana, S/o Mukundaiah for agricultural purpose. It is stated that the 6th respondent herein filed a suit in O.S No.190 of 2008 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners in respect of an extent of Ac 3.72 cents of land in Sy.Nos.209/2, 277/5 and 27/7 and the same was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.2016. It is further stated that, with an intention to harass the petitions, the 6th respondent filed a false complaint and got it referred to the police under Section 156 Cr.P.C for registration and the same was registered by Vedurukuppam PS as Crime No.26 of 2008 for the offence under Section 506 IPC. After completion of trial, the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Puttur has acquitted the petitioners herein holding them not guilty of the said offence. The said judgment also attained finality. While the things stood thus, in spite of dismissal of suit O.S No.190 of 2008, the 6th respondent has been interfering with the petitioners on and off and threatening the petitioners to implicate in false criminal cases under the provisions of SCs/STs (POA) Act. Due to apprehension of harassment by the police, at the instance of the 6th respondent, the petitioners No.1 and 2 have filed a detailed petition before the 2nd respondent on 15.07.2016. Apprehending further harassment by the police, the petitioners have filed WP No.28248 of 2016 before this Court. On knowing the same, the 3rd respondent was anguished with the petitioners and appears to have advised the 6th respondent herein to give a complaint against the members of the petitioners herein. Taking the support of the 3rd respondent the 6th respondent gave a false complaint anti dated 17.6.2016 to the 4th respondent. Accordingly, basing on the anti dated complaint of the 6th respondent, the 4th respondent registered a crime in FIR No.48 of 2016 dated 5.9.2016 under Section 3(1)(f) of SC/ST POA Amendment Act 2015 against the petitioners and M.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, who left India for Netherland on 29.05.2016 and working there since then. Questioning the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.

3. This Court vide order dated, 19.09.2016 while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted interim say as prayed for.

4. Heard Sri K. Koutilya, learned counsel representing Sri V.Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents.

5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition contended that, as apprehended by the petitioners No.1 and 2 in WP No.28248 of 2016, the 3rd respondent who has been supporting the 6th respondent herein, for extraneous considerations, got registered the impugned FIR dated 5.9.2016 on the basis of the alleged offence took place on 17.06.2016 not only with an intention to harass the petitioners but also to frustrate the relief sought for by the petitioners in WP No.28248 of 2016. He further submits that the manner and method adopted by the Police authorities, more particularly, the 3rd respondent herein, is high handed, arbitrary and illegal. He further contended that if this Hon’ble Court pleased to call fo