The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to prevent the misuse of the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and to discourage dishonest litigation filed with mala fide intentions.

ORDER :

1. The present, application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is filed by the applicant – original accused No.1 for quashing and setting aside the impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No.I-8 of 2019 registered with Nirona Police Station, Kachchh for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 323, 294(B), 506(2) & 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “I.P.C.”) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the case of the applicant in this application are as such that complainant took a loan of Rs. 5,73,758/- on 07.11.2007 and out of the said amount, a tractor was purchased, the tractor is as on date also running in the name of the complainant. Complainant sold the tractor to the applicant for consideration of Rs. 60,000/- and executed an agreement. The complainant and Babu Mura Maheshwari went to the House of the applicant and demanded Rs. 25,000/- and asking him to pay the instalments, however, the complainant and other person were attacked and abused, for which they had taken treatment. Thereafter the complainant made applications and therefore the applicant on 26.06.2019 executed an agreement and paid Rs. 25,000/-. Hence, the impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No. 1-8 of 2019 was lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 323, 294B, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3(1)(r), (s), 3(2)(5)(a) of The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Hence the present application.

3. Heard Mr. Darshan M. Varandani, the earned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Harshad K. Patel, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 – complainant and Mr. Soaham Joshi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 – State.

4. Mr. Darshan M. Varandani, the learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the averments made in the impugned F.I.R., whereby it is evident that the dispute was occurred in the 2009, which pertains to some monetary transaction by way of selling of tractor Pursuant to that, some agreement is executed between the parties. In the year 2019, the applicant has filed this complaint under Sections 406, 420, 323, 294B, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3(1)(r), (s), 3(2)(5)(a) of The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989, leading to present application. Furthermore, he has submitted that on bare reading of the complaint, the ingredients of any of the sections are not made out. Additionally, he has submitted that the incident occurred at the applicant's residence, and therefore, it cannot be considered as taking place in "public view." Moreover, he has submitted that considering the fact that no specific averment is made in the complaint that what word is used on the some derogatory remarks or insulting words. Furthermore, he has submitted that in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah versus State of Andra Pradesh reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531, more particularly paras : 5 to 8 and 12 thereof, the necessary requirement that F.I.R. must disclose that the accused are not belonging from the S.C. & S.T. community, and this crucial averment is also missing. Moreover, considering the alleged Sections 406, 420, 323, 294(B), 506(2) & 114 of the I.P.C., it is prima facie evident that these provisions are not applicable in the facts of the and the present complaint is filed with an ulterior motive and to settle some personal score under the guise of criminal prosecution. Hence, he has prayed that in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, (ii) Gorige Pentaiah (supra), (iii) Sri Gulam Mustafa versus State of Karnataka reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL – SC 71008, more particularly paras 36 to 39 thereo