The court ruled that allegations of caste-based abuse in public view under the SC & ST Act cannot be quashed without trial, emphasizing the need for intent to humiliate linked to caste identity.

JUDGMENT :
(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 205 of 2022, dated 09.12.2022, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, and 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(1) (r) and 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (in short ‘SC&ST Act’) registered at Police Station Dharmashala, District Kangra, H.P.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent no. 2/informant made a complaint to the police that he had visited McLeod Ganj on 9th December 2022 at about 2 pm. The accused, Shruti Rana, her mother Anita Sharma, Nisha Sood and her son Shashank Sood were present at home. They were abusing the parents of Rahul Rana. The informant went towards them. The accused abused the informant in the name of his caste in the presence of Neel Kamal and Amrish. The informant enquired from the accused as to why they were abusing him in the name of his caste, and they again abused him. Shruti Rana asked whether the informant was her father-in-law and whether she should call him her father. Shashank Sood opened the zip of his pants in the presence of Braj Bala and said what was uprooted earlier and what would be uprooted then. Rahul Rana enquired from the accused as to why they were using such language. All the accused persons abused and pushed Braj Bala, Devender Rana, Rahul Rana and the informant. The police registered the FIR and conducted the abused the informant in the name of his caste in the presence of five persons. The incident had taken place on a public path. The other accused had also committed the offences, hence the chargesheet was filed before the court.investigation. The Police found after the investigation that the accused, Shashank Sood, was present with Shruti Sharma, Nisha Sood and Neha Sharma at the place of the incident. He had

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and the filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings arising out of the same. It has been asserted that FIR number 205/2022 is a counterblast to the FIR registered by the mother of the accused against the in-laws of Shruti Rana. The petitioner was not present on the spot at the time of the incident. He went to the spot to enquire about the well-being of his mother at about 1 PM. This fact can be verified from the CCTV footage, which was not collected by the police. The allegations in the FIR and the statements recorded by the Police during the investigation do not show the commission of any offence punishable under the SC & ST Act. The complaint was filed at the instance of the in-laws of Shruti Rana, as the informant is working as a driver with them. The complaint is false, and the continuation of the proceedings is an abuse of the process of the court. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and that FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR be quashed.

4. The petition is opposed by filing a status report, reproducing the contents of the FIR and the steps taken during the investigation. It was asserted that the police filed a chargesheet after the completion of the investigation before the competent court, and the matter was listed before the Court for the consideration of the charge on 19th September 2024.

5. I have heard Mr Janesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent. 1/State and Mr. Surinder Singh Saklani, learned counsel for respondent no. 2/informant.

6. Mr Janesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are false. The petitioner was not present on the spot, which is evident from the CCTV footage. The petitioner did not use the words mentioned in the complaint made to the police. There is a discrepancy between the statements recor