The FIR did not disclose sufficient grounds for offences under the Atrocities Act, lacking essential elements such as derogatory remarks and public view.

ORDER :

(J.C. DOSHI, J.)

At the outset, it is required to be noted that, present petitioners have not pressed for this application insofar as the offence punishable under the IPC. Thus, this application is confined to the offence punishable under the Atrocities Act.

2. By way of this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the FIR being C.R. No. 11206033210727 registered with Unjha Police Station against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5)(a) of The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. The short facts of the case as emerging from the FIR are that the respondent no. 2 is original belongs to SC Caste. In the village Varahi, there were two water well for Dalit Category people since Government of Gaikwad and since there were facility of tap water from panchyat; the same were came to be shut and at the relevant point of time, there were no objection from any of person and the same place was also used for social activities. Even, the same place were also cordoned by person of patel community and there are two doors, one at the side of our area and another gate is at Patel Samaj people. For the act of Patel community, this was objected by complainant and his family members. Even, various applications were also preferred by the compliant to various authorities. Thereafter, these accused persons had come to the complainant and also informed that they would not make any construction of wall and would permit the complainant and other community people to use the same. Thereafter, on July 2021- when persons of Patel community had started construction for birds house and thus, it was objected. Thus, the complainant had also preferred various application before the concerned authority. On 13.08.2021, when the accused persons were unloading material of construction from vehicle and complainant had gone there and instructed to not to unload the materials. Thereafter, the accused persons had also come there and got angry upon the complainant, give fist blows, threatened with dire consequences and thereafter, other persons had come. With regard to this, complaint came to be registered with Unjha Police Station District Mehsana.

4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and learned advocate for the first informant and learned APP for the respondent – State. .

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners taking to the FIR would submit that general allegations are made against the petitioners and no such ingredients of the alleged offence is attracted if the FIR is read at its face value. In regards to the allegations made under the Atrocities Act, learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that FIR does not disclose the fact that any derogatory words was used by the petitioner to lower the caste of the first informant. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that if the FIR is read as it is no such ingredients of the alleged offence is found prima facie to have been attracted qua the petitioner and therefore by making above submissions, he would submit to allow this petition and to quash the FIR.

6. Learned advocate for the first informant would taking this Court through the statement made in the FIR submitted that offence alleged to have been made out against the petitioners as the petitioners have used derogatory words to lower the caste of the complainant and therefore prima-facie material is made out which constitute the offence as alleged in the FIR. He would therefore submit to dismiss the present petition.

7. Learned APP while adopting the submissions made by learned advocate for the first informant would submit to dismiss the present petition.

8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and examining the FIR as it is, it appears that allegations are made to the effect that petitioners with the connivance of each other intercepted the first info