The absence of public view and specific derogatory remarks in the allegations results in insufficient grounds for prosecution under the Atrocities Act.

ORDER :

1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that, present petitioner has 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.II/199/2019 registered with Ranpur Police Station against the petitioners for the o punishable under Sections 504 , 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and under Section 3(1) (R) (S), 3(2)(5)(a) of The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. The applicants are agriculturists and residents of Village Bodiya, Taluka Ranpur. A dispute arose concerning access to their agricultural land, which led Applicant No.1 to institute Mamlatdar Court Case No.1 of 2019 before the learned Mamlatdar, Ranpur under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act. Pursuant to a Panchnama drawn by the Circle Officer on 07.12.2018, the Mamlatdar allowed the suit in favour of the applicant by order dated 20.06.2019. Aggrieved by the said outcome, opponent No.3 allegedly began harassing the applicants.

3.1. Subsequently, opponent No.3 lodged FIR being C.R. No. II-104 of 2019 before Ranpur Police Station on 01.07.2019 under Sections 323 , 504, 506(2), and 114 of the IPC, as well as Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, alleging an incident that purportedly took place three months prior at the premises of the Mamlatdar Office. The applicants were arrested on 02.07.2019 and subsequently released on bail by order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Botad.

3.2. Thereafter, the complainant lodged another FIR being C.R. No. II-199 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 at Ranpur Police Station, Botad, alleging offences under Sections 504 , 506(2), and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act, pertaining to a separate incident allegedly occurring on 16.10.2019. The applicants contend that the said FIR is false, malicious, and filed in retaliation for having succeeded in the Mamlatdar Court proceedings. They also assert that the alleged incident occurred on their private agricultural land—not in a public place—and that there is no independent witness to support the allegations. Hence, they seek quashing of the FIR invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, alleging abuse of process of law.

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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner as the petitioner has used derogatory word