To establish an offence under the Atrocities Act, allegations must clearly demonstrate derogatory language used in public view, which was not present in this case.

ORDER :

1. 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 I-C.R. No.82 of 2017 registered with Gandhidham ‘B’ Division Police Station against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) 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 applicants were arrested in connection with I-C.R. No.82 of 2017 registered with Gandhidham 'B' Division Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 332 , 333, 323, 186, 504, and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE ; Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), and 3(2)(va) of the-ct, 1989; Section 177 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT ; and Section 135 of the GUJARAT POLICE ACT . Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the matter was registered as Criminal Case No.2211 of 2017 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhidham, and subsequently committed to the Court of Sessions, being triable by the Special Judge under the Atrocities Act, and numbered as Special (Atrocity) Case No.24 of 2017.

3.1. It is the case of the applicants that while framing of charges was carried out on 01.11.2017, the prosecution has suppressed material facts relating to injuries sustained by applicant No.1 during the alleged incident, which was a result of a free fight. The Arrest Panchnama recorded the presence of a head injury and medical treatment taken by applicant No.1. Further, applicant No.2 lodged an FIR being I-C.R. No.83 of 2017 on 20.05.2017 against a mob of about sixty persons, including traffic brigade personnel, for offences under Sections 143 , 147, 324, 435, 379 IPC and Section 135 of the GUJARAT POLICE ACT , alleging assault, theft, and arson of the applicants’ vehicle.

3.2. The applicants allege that the genesis of the incident has been suppressed by the investigating agency and no action was initiated in the counter FIR filed by applicant No.2, as traffic personnel were involved. It is further contended that crucial evidence, such as CCTV footage, was not collected deliberately. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is therefore filed seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, contending that the initiation of prosecution is an abuse of process of law and has been undertaken with mala fide intent.

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 d