The presence of third-party witnesses is essential to establish an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, as derogatory remarks must occur in public view.

JUDGMENT :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

By way of this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”), the petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the learned Special Atrocity Judge, Gandhinagar dated 31/03/2017 below Exh.21 in Atrocity Case No.29 of 2013 seeking discharge from the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition emerging from the pleadings are that first informant owns lands of about 65 bighas in the sim of village Pethapur (Fatepura). It is alleged that on 21.10.2012 at about 15.00 hours, the petitioner and the other co-accused started abusing first informant near the land bearing Revenue Survey No. 2957. It is also alleged that first informant was threatened to vacate said land and handover possession of the lands in question to the petitioner and other co-accused and was also threatened that first informant would be done to death. It is alleged that petitioner and other co-accused abused the first informant by using derogatory words and have also spoken words against the community of the first informant. It is further alleged that accused have started beating the first informant with sticks and, therefore, FIR was lodged. In the said FIR it is alleged that land bearing Revenue Survey No. 2957/p was purchased by the grand father of the first informant named Narvarlal Kalidas Leuva and his elder brother Snehalbhai for a consideration of Rs. 87,125/- by a registered sale deed bearing no. 3955 from Dhulaji Jivaji Thakore; his nephew Rajuji Vihaji Thakore; Shakraji Jivaji Thakore; Harkhaben Jivaji Thakore. It is further alleged that in respect of very same survey number, land admeasuring 02 hectare was purchased by the grant father of the first informant Natvarlal Kalidas and others from the aforestated Agriculturists on 10.03.1997 by way of a registered sale deed bearing no. 890. It is alleged that aforesaid land which have been purchased by the grant father of the first informant are situated adjoining to the land owned by the first informant and they are cultivating said land. It is also alleged that both the pieces of land are in possession of the first informant. It is further alleged that petitioner has got executed Banakhat on 05.04.2012 in respect of the very same land. It is further alleged that first informant has learnt that Power of Attorney of the land in dispute was given in favour of Maulik Rameshchandra Prajapati, a dispute case is also pending before the Prant Officer in respect of the aforesaid facts. It is further alleged that on 21.10.2012, the first informant wanted to sell land bearing Revenue Survey No. 2952 to 2956 and, therefore, had gone to show said land to one Kunjanbhai Shukla and Mayur Makwana. At that time the petitioner, Maulik Prajapati; Rajuji Vihaji; Kanaji Thakore came near their there and started abusing him by using derogatory words and also threatened to vacate said piece of land. It is further alleged that on 22.10.2012 at 06.30 p.m. when the first informant was returned to his home, the petitioner and other co- accused met him and accused started abusing him by using derogatory words and also threatened that he would be done to death. Therefore, FIR was lodged.

3. Pursuant to lodgment of the FIR, the petitioner preferred application seeking quashment of the FIR being CR.MA No.20302 of 2013 which came to be disposed of as withdrawn as per order dated 10/03/2014 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred application under Section 227 of the Code seeking discharge before the learned Sessions Judge at Gandhinagar which came to be rejected as stated in paragraph 1 of this judgment.

4.1 In essence, the petitioner prayed for quashment of the impugned order whereby the learned trial Court declined to discharge the accused.

5. Assailing the impugned order, learned advocate Mr.M