IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the principle that when appeal is specifically provided for in a particular act against orders other than interlocutory, the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 10 of 2021 including the order dated 04.08.2022, passed by the learned Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Seraikella whereby and where under process has been issued against the petitioners and another accused for the offences punishable under Section 504/506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(r) & (s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Seraikella.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 13.12.2021 at about 4:30 P.M., the petitioners along with another co-accused person abused the complainant by using his caste name and insulted the complainant and his family members and criminally intimidated them. The learned Special Judge, taking into consideration the complaint, the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and statement of the inquiry witnesses, vide order dated 04.08.2022 found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 504/506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and ordered issuance of process against the petitioners and the co-accused person.

4. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation in the complaint or anywhere else that the petitioners are not the members of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe which is a sine-qua-non for constituting the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is next submitted that undisputedly the petitioner no.1 was the Manager (Retail Sale) and the petitioner no.2 was the Sales Officer, Tatanagar -1, Retail Sales Area, on the alleged date of occurrence and admittedly the petrol pump is situated at the land belonging to Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

5. Relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710, para -16 of which reads as under:-

“16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is the subject-matter of civil dispute between the parties as per Respondent 2 herself. Due to dispute, the appellant and others were not permitting Respondent 2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the matter is regarding possession of property pending before the civil court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.”

It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that when there is a dispute about the possession of the land, the same would not disclose any offence under the penal provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 unless the victim is abused, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that he or she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It is next submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, drawing attention of this Court to the unimpeachable document which is the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella, the copy of which has been kept at annexure -7 that the Circle Officer of Gamharia who was appointed as the Magistrate; directed that on 13.12.2021, the said land be made free from encroachment. Drawing attention of this Court to annexure -8, another unimpeachable document, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the same is the handing over possession report which also bears the signature of the Circle Offi