Filing of FIR after the limitation period under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. invalidates proceedings; allegations must demonstrate intent to humiliate based on SC/ST status to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Harish Kumar, J.)

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner by filing the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the FIR vide Gopalganj SC/ST P.S. Case No. 32 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 166 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(i)(r), 3(2)(vii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3. The short facts which led to the filing of the present application starts from the very institution of the FIR on 30.06.2021, wherein it is alleged that on 01.07.2015, the petitioner, who was earlier holding the post of SDPO, Hathwa has taken the informant to his office and harassed publicly and humiliated. By showing the fear of false implication in Arms Act, he was also forced to sign one application for instituting a case against one Ashutosh Diwedi. Due to the aforesaid incidence, the informant has suffered mental agony and loss of reputation.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner while assailing the very institution of the FIR firstly contended that with regard to an occurrence, which took place on 01.07.2015, the present FIR has instituted in the year 2021 and to be more specific on 30.06.2021. The offence as alleged in the FIR, is punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein the maximum punishment is one month with fine, whereas, under Section 323 IPC, the punishment is of one year with fine. Similarly, under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code, the punishment is provided for two years with fine. Thus, very institution of the FIR after lapse of six years, is hit by Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., where cognizance is a bar for an offence after expiry of the period of limitation.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further urged that even if the allegation levelled in the FIR taken to be true, no offence much less under Section 3(i)(r), 3(2)(vii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out.

6. The narratives made in the FIR does not reveal that the informant was in any manner humiliated and harassed on account of he being a member of SC/ST community. It is also contended that subsequently, the statement of the informant/O.P. No. 2 was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the copy of which is marked as Annexure-3 to the supplementary affidavit, wherein, he categorically denied that he has ever been instituted such FIR, rather he deposed before the learned Magistrate that his signature has been obtained on a blank paper, which has been used by some unscrupulous person for the purpose of lodging of the FIR on account of some oblique reason. He failed to recognize even the petitioner and denied the factum of institution of the FIR.

7. Adverting to the aforesaid facts, learned Advocate thus submitted where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with the mala fide and/or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the proceeding must be quashed. Reliance has also been placed on a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal & Ors., 1992 SCC (Supp. 1) 335. It is lastly contended that the very continuation of the FIR is also bad in law that till date, the investigation has not been completed nor any charge-sheet has been filed and the matter has been kept pending for investigation.

8. Learned Advocate for the State, on the other hand, submits that since the matter is pending for investigation, let the investigation be completed.

9. Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of the fact that the allegation levelled in the FIR clearly demonstrate that no case much less under Section 3(i)(r), 3(2) (vii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out for the simple reason, as it has not be