The court emphasized the importance of not questioning the veracity of the allegations in the FIR and the need to exercise the power of quashing sparingly, based on the specific parameters and circumstances of each case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. Both these criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No.156 of 2020, now pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Dhanbad.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioner no.1- Sudhanshu Pandey of Cr.M.P. No. 2376 of 2021 died during the pendency of the case, hence, this criminal miscellaneous petition is not pressed in respect of petitioner no.1- Sudhanshu Pandey.

4. So Cr.M.P. No.2376 of 2021 is dismissed in respect of petitioner no.1- Sudhanshu Pandey as not pressed.

5. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners being not the members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes intentionally insulted and intimated the informant and her husband who are the members of schedules tribes with intent to humiliate them and abused the informant and her husband by their caste name and assaulted them and threatened them to forcibly dispossess them from the land, the possession of which was entrusted to the informant and her husband by Land Returning Circle Officer in Land Return Case No. 2/2017-18 dated 19.12.2017.

6. On the basis of the written report, police registered Baliapur P.S. Case No. 156 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B/34 of Indian Penal Code as well as under the penal provision of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

7. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are false. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners of Cr.M.P. No. 2376 of 2021 have sold the land to the petitioner no.2 of Cr.M.P. No. 2384 of 2021. It is then submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that there is no allegation of any forgery having been committed by the petitioners of both the two criminal miscellaneous petitions and this criminal case has been instituted by the informant for wreaking vengeance upon the petitioners even though the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and Original Suit No. 565 of 2018 has been filed and Civil Misc. Appeal No. 24 of 2019 is sub-judice between the parties to the case. It is next submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that no date and time of the occurrence has been alleged in the FIR and no offence punishable under any of the penal provisions of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners.

8. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of B. Venkateswaran and Ors. vs P. Bakthavatchalam reported in 2023 SCCOnLine SC 14, wherein, in the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was satisfied from the materials on the record that no case for the offence punishable under the penal provision of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was made out and as prima facie, none of the ingredients of any penal provision of law were made out, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the facts and circumstances of that case quashed and set aside the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the appellant; it is submitted by the learned senior counsel that in this case also, the penal provision of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been invoked only for the purpose of putting pressure on the petitioners to back out from the civil dispute; even though no offence is made of in the facts of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No.156 of 2020 be quashed and set aside.

9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on