Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1209

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Rakesh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another - Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 1153 of 2023
Decided On : 22-09-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Vedant Ranta, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, Mr Vijay Singh Bhatia, Advocate

Quashing petition under SC/ST Act dismissed as FIR allegations of caste abuse at public place prima facie disclose offences; courts accept averments at face value without evidence appreciation, civil dispute no bar.

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 504 and 506 - Quashing of FIR under inherent powers - Allegations of caste-based abuse and threat at public place within public view prima facie satisfy ingredients of offences - Witness statements corroborate version - Petition dismissed as no ground for quashing shown. (Paras 18,19)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Principles for quashing from categories in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal - Where FIR allegations taken at face value disclose offence, no quashing - Cannot appreciate evidence, reliability or truthfulness at this stage - Civil dispute underlying not bar if offence made out. (Paras 12,20,22)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Post charge framing and charge sheet filing, inherent powers not to be exercised except rare cases - Remedy lies in revision or discharge application before trial court. (Paras 26,29)

Facts of the case:
Informant worked as mason in under-construction house, demanded wages and return of machines/tools - Petitioner paid partial amount, retained tools - On demand at public bridge, allegedly abused informant by caste name and threatened in presence of witnesses - FIR registered, investigation completed, charge sheet filed, charges framed.

Findings of Court:
FIR allegations prima facie disclose offences under SC & ST Act as incident at public place within public view - No abuse of process or legal bar - Trial to proceed.

Issues: Whether FIR quashable as civil dispute converted to criminal; whether incident not in public view; whether delays and evidence collection vitiate proceedings; maintainability post charge framing.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts exercising quashing jurisdiction accept FIR and materials at face value - Cannot conduct mini-trial on veracity - Enmity or civil origin provides motive for crime, not false implication - Public place with vicinity shops and witnesses satisfies statutory requirement.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petition to quash sc/st act fir for caste abuse. (Para 1 , 2)
2. civil dispute converted to criminal; allegations false. (Para 3 , 8)
3. witnesses corroborate caste abuse; charges framed. (Para 4 , 5 , 9 , 10)
4. petition dismissed; trial court to proceed. (Para 11 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. quash fir if no prima facie offence or abuse. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. casteist abuse at public place prima facie offence. (Para 18 , 19)
7. assume fir true at quashing stage. (Para 20 , 21)
8. enmity no bar to quashing valid prosecution. (Para 22 , 23)
9. petitioner's precedents inapplicable to facts. (Para 24)
10. telephone abuse issue moot for quashing. (Para 25)
11. post-charge, use revision not inherent power. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 184 of 2022, dated 21.09.2022, registered at Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur (HP), for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “SC & ST Act”) and Sections 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint to the police that he was working as a mason in the under-construction house of the petitioner. He demanded his wages from the petitioner. The petitioner paid only Rs. 40,000/- and stopped the work. The informant’s machines were also kept by the petitioner. The informant demanded money from the petitioner, but he threatened and abused him (the informant) by name of his caste. The amount of Rs. 1,26,000/- was due from the petitioner. The informant called the petitioner on 04.09.2022 at around 02.30 PM telephonically, but he abused the informant in the name of his caste. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The police filed the charge sheet before the learned Trial Court after the completion of the investigation.

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 said FIR. It has been asserted that the dispute between the parties is contractual. The complainant prayed for the return of his tools and recovery of the money. A Civil remedy is being converted into criminal proceedings. The allegations made against the petitioner are false. The informant produced the recording of the conversation, which was seized on 17.10.2022 after a long gap of almost a month. The statements of the witnesses were also recorded after a long time from the date of registration of the FIR. The statements of the witnesses do not prove the prosecution’s case. The police had not verified the incident dated 03.04.2022 from the neighbours. There was a delay in reporting the matter to the police. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR be quashed.

4. The petition is opposed by respondent No.1 by filing a reply asserting that the police investigated the matter and found the allegations to be correct. Dina Nath and Deepak Sharma corroborated the informant’s version. A charge sheet was filed before the learned Trial Court, and the matter was listed for the prosecution’s evidence from 13.06.2024 to 15.06.2024. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

5. A separate reply was filed by the respondent No. 2, reiterating the contents of the complaint. It was asserted that the learned Trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioner, and the present petition is not maintainable