The main legal point established is that for an offense under the Atrocities Act to be made out, intentional insult or intimidation based on caste must occur in a place within public view, and the dispute must involve indignities, humiliation, or harassment of a vulnerable community member based on their caste.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Varun Z.Bharda and Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respective respondents. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith.

2. The present application has been preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of the FIR registered at Chikhali Police Station, District - Navsari as Cr.No.II-105 of 2017 on 14.06.2017 for offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and section 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, “the Atrocities Act”).

3. The land dispute has been raised by the complainant and her family members, where it is the plea of the applicants that the complainant had encroached upon 10’x5’ = 50 feet land of the applicants and has constructed a shed. The applicant no.1 and the labourers had gone for demarcation of the boundaries between land, and while they were drawing the line with lime, the complainant without any rhyme or reason had picked up quarrel, and the complainant and her husband resisted the applicants to make a boundary line and to create a fence and when the applicant no.2 intervened the complainant, her husband and her father-in-law rushed to beat applicant no.2 with stick and pulled his collar and threatened to kill them.

4. Advocate Mr. Girish K.Patel for the applicants submits that the complainant, her husband and father-in-law threatened to frame them under the Atrocities Act and in case of rape and thus, the applicants gave a written complaint to Chikhali Police Station on 02.06.2017 narrating the correct facts and the acts done by the complainant. Further, an application was also given to D.S.P. Navsari for providing protection for carrying out the fencing on 02.06.2017.

4.1 Mr. Patel further stated that, the respondent no.2 - complainant had also earlier given some complaint on 28.03.2017 with an intention to encroach upon the lands of the applicants by misusing the process of law and police machinery and taking disadvantage of their caste. The complainant being a lady misusing her caste and threatened to fulfill the aim of further encroachment and thus a false complaint came to be filed against the applicants.

4.2 Mr. Patel submits that FIR is filed to create havoc and fear in the minds of the public and applicants. It is submitted that respondent no.2 is habitual in picking up quarrel with the only intention to encroach upon the applicants’ land. He submits that the applicants are victimized because of the false and frivolous complaint under the Atrocities Act, where the dispute is absolutely civil in nature and thus, relying upon the judgment of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr., reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710, Mr. Patel submits that, if there is any dispute between the parties about the possession of land, that gives rise to a civil dispute between the parties and when the case is not made out under section 3(1)(r) of the Atrocities Act, Mr. Patel submits that, extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised for quashing of the FIR.

4.3 Mr. Patel further submits that, as per the allegation in the FIR, the incident has not occurred in a public place nor in public view, as according to the complainant, on 02.06.2017, the husband of the complainant has left for the school for attending the admission process and her parents-in-law were present at home, and she was engaged in domestic work; at that time, at about 8:30, the present applicants, who are shown as adjoining agricultural land owner, had asked the complainant to draw line of lime from their front yard of the house for creating a fence. At that time, the complainant asked the applicants to make the compound in their own land and it was alleged that both the accused got excited and abused her by her caste and had threatened to remove them from their property.

4.4 Mr. Patel s