The Court emphasized the importance of evidence and the absence of a motive for the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner, leading to the quashing of the FIR.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Raisa seeking quashing of the FIR No.97/2019 registered at the Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Jodhpur City (West) for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 504 IPC and Sections 3 (1)(d), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the misc. petition are that the respondent No.2/complainant Smt. Saroj W/o Shri Ramlal lodged a report at the Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Jodhpur City (West) alleging therein that her daughter-in- law Smt. Sonu was washing clothes on the platform outside her house on 27.05.2019 as a result whereof, water started splattering around on which, Raisa who lives in the neighbourhood came there and started hurling caste based abuses to her daughter-in-law imputing that the complainant's family was of a lower caste and was indulged in spreading filth and threatened that they should leave the place or else, they would be implicated in false cases by the accused who was a Home-guard. On the basis of the report aforestated, the FIR No.97/2019 came to be registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 504 IPC and Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and investigation was commenced. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the said FIR on the ground that it is a measure to the counterblast FIR No.94/2019 lodged by the petitioner against the complainant party on 29.05.2019.

3. Shri N.K.Bohra, Advocate representing the petitioner drew the Court's attention to the proceedings undertaken by the officers of the Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Jodhpur Metro (West) on 27.05.2019 under Sections 151/107 Cr.P.C. against the complainant and the petitioner. In the complaint submitted by the IO of the Police Station concerned, it is stated that an information was received regarding two women quarreling with each other on which, HC Neeb Singh, Ct. Ramaram and Woman Ct. Smt. Sarojbala proceeded to the place of incident i.e, Bombay Yozna Colony, Sector B, Nayapura Chokha. The police party saw the petitioner and the complainant quarreling with each other. Both the women were asked for the reason of quarrelling on which the complainant Smt. Saroj stated that she was cleaning her house. Water flowed outside on to the platform of the neighbor on which, bitter words were exchanged between them. She also stated that because of the very same reason of splattering of water, quarrels often flared up between them. The police officers tried to pacify the brawling women but could not succeed because both of them were hurling aggressive insinuations of killing each other on which both of them were arrested preventively and a complaint was submitted to the Assistant Police Commissioner against the complainant as well as the petitioner under Sections 151/107 Cr.P.C. on 27.05.2019. Shri Bohra drew the Court's attention to the statement of Sarojbala, the female constable who was one of the members of the police team, who reached to the spot on the day of incident and pointed out that the female constable nowhere stated that she heard the petitioner hurling caste based abuses to the complainant. He further urged that the petitioner lodged an FIR No. 94/2019 against the complainant at the earliest opportunity whereas the FIR came to be lodged by the complainant as late as on 03.06.2019 i.e., after eight days of the incident and thus, no credence can be given to the allegations as set out in the impugned FIR which deserves to be quashed for being a measure of plain and simple counterblast and as the allegations levelled therein are patently false and fabricated.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Kaushal Sharma, learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently a