Offenses under the SC/ST Act must be linked to the victim's caste, and lodging an FIR with an ulterior motive can lead to quashing of the FIR.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners have sought for quashing of FIR No. 132/2022 registered with Dudu Police Station for offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 447 and 504 IPC as well as under Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s), 3(1) (f) and Section 3(2) (VA) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1989').

2. The challenge is on the ground that to settle a pure civil dispute just to make pressure on the petitioners, false and concocted FIR has been lodged which suffers from malice of respondent No.2.

3. The case of the petitioners is that Plot No.1 under Khata No. 52 Khasra No. 1 area 3.79 hectare in village Killa Tehsil Dudu District Jaipur was allotted to one Bhoma S/o Dhalu as Bhoma was a landless farmer long long ago. Later on, Bhoma filed an application for reallotment of another plot bearing Kashra No. 1698 in place of plot No. 1 as plot No. 1 was non-fertile/ non- cultivable. The application of Bhoma dated 24.10.1962 was allowed by the Tehsildar, a copy of the order is at Annexure-2. Thereafter the petitioners on 11.7.1975 filed an application for allotment of plot No.1 above area 5 bighas. On the prayer of the petitioners, the land was allotted to the petitioners vide letter at Annexure-4 and the land was recorded as gair Khatedar land on the mutation file on 3.3.1976. From the date of allotment, the petitioners are in possession of the said land. After the death of Bhoma his sons namely Bhanwar Lal and Rameshwar started putting claim on plot No.1. The petitioners filed civil suit No. 95/2014 for permanent injunction and declaration of khatedari rights against sons of Bhoma. By an order of interim injunction dated 3.7.2014, the Court directed that the parties shall not alienate or sale out the suit property. A copy of the order dated 3.7.2014 is at Annexure-6. Thereafter, the petitioners by filing an application informed to the Tehsildar, Dudu regarding order of the Court dated 3.7.2014. Learned SDO by order dated 2.7.2016 directed for maintaining status quo with regard to the property in pursuance of the order of the civil Court dated 3.7.2014. The SDO summoned a report from local Police Station, Dudu who submitted report of possession of the petitioners on the suit property. The interim order dated 3.7.2014 was challenged by the defendant of the suit in an appeal before the revenue appellate authority which was dismissed on 24.5.2019, copy of the dismissal order is at Annexure-10, thereafter the defendants of the suit hatched conspiracy with local Tehsildar and removed from the note of the revenue records the order dated 3.7.2014 and got a registered sale deed executed in favour of informant Dev Karan on 10.4.2019. Evidently, Dev Karan had purchased a litigation and the transferor had acted with malice and malafide knowing well that the Court had restrained the parties from transferring the suit property.

4. In the aforesaid background, the FIR was lodged stating that respondent No.2 is in possession of plot No.1 area 3.79 hectare from the year 2019 and is cultivating the land. On 10.3.2022, when the informant went to see his field, he noticed that two tractors were ploughing the field. When the complainant asked not to plough the field, the petitioners Sharwan Singh and others started hurling abuses on the informant by taking his caste name. The accused persons threatened the informant to be crushed within the tractors. There is allegation of scuffle and assault also.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the admitted background of the FIR for his submission that in fact, there is land dispute between the parties wherein the petitioners have got bonafide claim. The alleged occurrence did not take place for the reason that respondent No.2 was a member of Scheduled Caste rather for dispute between the parties over the plot which was the subject matter of the civil dispute on the date of FIR.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the law is well settled that when FI