IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need to prevent false and frivolous cases under the SC/ST Act and highlighted the importance of evidence to support charges under the Act.

ORDER ON BOARD :

1. The petitioners have filed the present Cr.M.P. under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR No. 62/2021 registered against them at Police Station - Mahasamund, District –Mahasamund (C.G.) for commission of offence under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC & Sections 3(1) n /k & 3(2)(v) d of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the SC/ST Act”) (which has been subsequently added in the FIR) as well as subsequent charge- sheet submitted before the learned Special Judge (ST/SC) Mahasamund on 13.12.2022, present petitioners namely Ramkumar Agrawal, Radha Agrawal, Garima Agrawal & Reema Agrawal restraining the construction, have broken the wall and started abusing and assaulted the complainant which has caused injuries on her right wrist, left shoulder and face. It is also case of the prosecution that the petitioners have also committed marpit with her sister-in-law (Jethani) namely Bharti Sonwani. The incident was seen by Gajanand Sahu & Saddam Tandon. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, the FIR has been registered against the present petitioners for commission of offence as aforestated.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that neither the petitioners nor respondents are owners of the property, it is private land, which is being used by the complainant as their way, therefore, the complainant has no locus standi in interfering with peaceful possession of the property. He would further submit that the civil suit was also filed before the trial Court where law of torts has been filed against the complainant. He would further submit that the complainant has also filed complaint against the petitioners before Judicial Magistrate First Class for causing loss of the property owned by the complainant to the tune of Rs. 2234/- which is also still pending. He would further submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the crime in question as from perusal of the FIR, it is quite vivid that no offence is made out against the petitioners and would pray for quashing of the aforesaid FIR as well as the subsequent charge- sheet filed against them.

3. On the other hand learned State counsel would submit that there is sufficient material placed on record regarding prima facie establishing commission of offence as afore-stated, therefore, at this juncture, whether the property used by the petitioners is owned by them, is a matter of evidence which can be decided after adducing evidence before the trial Court and the same cannot be a ground for quashing of the entire FIR. He would further submit that the FIR has rightly been registered against the petitioners and would pray for dismissal of the petition.

4. In pursuance of direction earlier issued by this Court, respondent No. 2- Ms. Kalpana Verma, (Dy.S.P.) the then SDO (P), Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund present posted as C.S.P. Mana, Raipur & respondent No. 3- Mr. Tikaram Sarthi, Assistant Sub-Inspector, City Kotwali, Mahasamund are present before this Court along with their counsel Mr. Anurag Verma and would support the case of the prosecution. They would submit that prima facie there is involvement of the petitioners in commission of offence and the same cannot be quashed by filing petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and would pray for dismissal of the petition.

5. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 6 supporting the case of the prosecution would submit that there is sufficient material against the petitioner as such, it cannot be quashed at this juncture and would pray for dismissal of the petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction.

7. The submission of the petitioners is that the land in dispute is private land and the same is being used by them as their way and no incident has been taken place, is the matter of evidence which cannot be decided at this juncture as such, reg