The court reaffirmed that a cognizance order can be quashed if it lacks substantial basis and if allegations raised do not prima facie constitute an offence, highlighting the misuse of protective legislation.

JUDGMENT :

(CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.)

Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Kumar Praveen, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The present appeal has been filed for quashing the cognizance order dated 29.06.2024, as passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai, in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 17 of 2022 registered for the offence under Sections 307 , 323, 342, 436 and 452 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short the ‘I.P.C.’) and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”), whereby and whereunder final form has been submitted by the Investigating OfÏcer on 31.12.2022 vide Final Form No. 37/2022 in favour of the appellants, despite of that the learned Judge has been pleased to take cognizance for the offence under Sections 323 , 342, 436 & 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act against the appellants.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant, who belongs to dusadh caste, on the alleged date of occurrence, was sleeping with Sikandar Sah (witness no. 1) in the ofÏce of their shop of “Balu Gitti”. It was stated further that in the midnight of 7/8.02.2022, all the accused persons surrounded both of them and appellant no. 1 started abusing him by taking his caste name and ordered the other co-accused to throw him in fire. Upon which, all the accused persons tried to push both of them in fire, but when local people assembled there, all the accused persons fled away. The complainant further alleged that he identified the accused persons in the light of fire flame. In the said incident, house belongings costing about Rs. One Lakh was turned to ash. The complainant further stated that main reason behind this occurrence is a dispute over passage of lane, for which he was being abused by the accused persons by taking his caste name. Thereafter, a written information was given to local police on 08.02.2022 to SC/ST Police Station, but after enquiry, no F.I.R. was lodged against the accused persons. Ultimately, the present complaint being Complaint Case No. 14 of 2022 was lodged on 14.02.2022 against the accused persons, which was sent to SC/ST Police Station vide order dated 28.03.2022 for institution of F.I.R. under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Upon which, SC/ST P.S. Case No. 17 of 2022 has been registered on 02.06.2022.

4. Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the present complaint case is a classical example of the fact that how the provision of SC/ST Act is being misused in our society. In this context, it is pointed out by Mr. Agrawal that admittedly alleged mischief was caused with property of witness no. 1, but intentionally, respondent no. 2, who was one of the employee of witness no. 1 and belongs to scheduled caste community, was made complainant in the present complaint petition, which is sufÏcient to suggest the malafide intention and oblique motive of the complainant and also witness no. 1 namely, Sikandar Sah.

5. It is further submitted by Mr. Agrawal that the complaint in issue not appears supported by afÏdavit, on the basis of which the F.I.R. was lodged. It is submitted that on this ground alone, the pending proceeding is required to be quashed. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Babu Venkatesh and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. reported in (2022) 5 SCC 639.

6. It is further submitted by Mr. Agrawal that admittedly the dispute arisen out of land di