JUDGMENT :

Inderjeet Singh, J.

1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings pending in the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 45/2019 for the offences under Sections 332, 353, 504 of IPC and 3(1)(M) & 3(1)(S) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged an FIR No. 0182/2019 at Police Station Sadar Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu for the offences under Sections 332, 353, 504 of IPC and sections 3(1)(M) & 3(1)(S) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in reference to which the petitioner was arrested on 17.06.2019. The police after investigation filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences under sections 332, 353, 504 of IPC and sections 3(1)(M) & 3(1)(S) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial court after going through the charge-sheet submitted by the police agency took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences as alleged against him in the charge-sheet and thereafter the trial is going on in Sessions Case No. 45/2019 in the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhunjhunu.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present false FIR has been lodged against the petitioner just to implicate him in the non-cognizable offences. Counsel relied upon the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principle Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of Jai Jinendra vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 1531/2018, decided on 20.11.2018.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that from the FIR itself it reveals that there is allegation against the petitioner of insulting and abusing the complainant with caste at public place and the allegation levelled against the petitioner is yet to be proved during the trial. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the quashing of FIR should be exception and rarity than original rule and in support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Yogendra Singh Jadon & Anr. Reported in SCC 2020 (12) 588 where in Para-5 it has been held as under:-

"5. We find that the High Court has examined the entire issue as to whether the offence under Sections 420 and 120-B is made out or not at pre trial stage. The respondents are beneficiary of the grant of cash credit limit when their father was the President of the Bank. The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be proved in court of law. The manner in which loan was advanced without any proper documents and the fact that the respondents are beneficiary of benevolence of their father prima facie disclose an offence under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. It may be stated that other officials of the Bank have been charge sheeted for an offence under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act. The charge under Section 420 IPC is not an isolated offence but it has to be read along with the offences under the Act to which the respondents may be liable with the aid of Section 120-B of IPC."

5. Learned Public Prosecutor further relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Skoda Auto Volkswagen vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2021 AIR (SC) (Page No. 931) where in Para 41 it has been held as under;-

"41. It is needless to point out that ever since the decision of the Privy Council in King Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed, the law is well settled that Courts would not thwart any investigation. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first inf