JUDGMENT :

M. K. THAKKER, J.

1. The present application has been preferred for quashment of the FIR being C.R. No. 11190002220710 of 2022 dated 01.04.2022, registered with Botad Police Station, District Botad, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. As per the contents of the FIR lodged by the first informant, namely Himmatbhai Rajabhai Maru, it is stated that the complainant had been allotted land by the Government for Santhni purposes, admeasuring approximately 12 vighas, and is engaged in cultivation thereof. It is further alleged that the adjoining land falls under Zambrala Survey Number and is owned by one Diyalbhai Lavjibhai Mathodiya, however, he was in the habit of using the complainant’s land as a passage to access his own field, which was objected to by the complainant. It is alleged that on 08.03.2022, while the complainant and one Dahyabhai Nathubhai Godavariya were present in the complainant’s field, the accused persons named in the FIR attempted to use the said land as a pathway to reach their field. Upon objection being raised, the accused persons asserted that it was an old road and that they would continue to use the same. The complainant is stated to have questioned that if the said pathway were to be dug up, how the accused would continue to use it. It is further alleged that, upon such exchange, the accused persons became agitated, used abusive language referring to the caste of the complainant, and issued threats that if the complainant proceeded to dig the pathway, he would face dire consequences. Upon intervention by the said Dahyabhai, the complainant returned to his residence. It is further stated that on 09.03.2022, the complainant dug up the said pathway and thereafter proceeded to Vadodara on 11.03.2022. Subsequently, on 26.03.2022, the complainant received a telephone call from one Damjibhai Virabhai Solanki informing him that the portion which had been dug up had been refilled by the accused persons, who had resumed using the said pathway to access their field. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the FIR came to be lodged, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Maunish Pathak for the applicant, learned advocate Ms. Niyati Vaishnav for the complainant and learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for the State.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Pathak, appearing for the applicant, submits that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 08.03.2022, whereas the FIR came to be lodged on 01.04.2022, i.e., after a delay of more than 22 days. It is further submitted that there was no element of “alarm” caused to the complainant, which is a sine qua non for attracting the provisions of Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Insofar as the allegations under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are concerned, it is contended that no statements of any independent witnesses have been recorded, nor is there any specific reference to the exact words allegedly used by the accused in relation to the caste of the complainant. It is further submitted that, in any case, the alleged incident cannot be said to have occurred in “public view,” which is an essential requirement for constituting an offence under the Atrocities Act, and therefore, the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is also contended that a bare reading of the FIR indicates that the dispute pertains to the use of a pathway, which is essentially of a civil nature, and instead of seeking appropriate remedies under civil law, the present FIR has been lodged. It is thus submitted that neither the essential ingredients of the offences under the Atrocities Act nor those of criminal intimidation are satisfied in the present case, and therefore, the