Allegations under SC/ST Act must show intent to humiliate based on caste; quashing of proceedings is justified when no prima facie case exists.

JUDGMENT

Shamim Ahmed, J.

Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Charu Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the entire record.

2. As per the office report dated 16.03.2022 notice has already been served upon opposite party No.2 but till no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No.2 nor any counsel is present today to represent the opposite party No.2.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant presses urgency in the matter and submits that the appellant is an old person and is aged about 72 years. Thus, this Court has no option but to proceed for final arguments in the matter.

4. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14A(1) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred to quash entire criminal proceeding of Special Trial No.944/2021 ( State v. Vinod & Another), including cognizance and summoning order dated 21.08.2021 under Section 323 , 504 and 506 I.P.C. and section 3(1)Da of SC/ST Act, passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bahraich, arising out of F.I.R. No.166/2021 under Section 323 , 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)Da & Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Payagpur, District-Bahraich. It is further prayed on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings of the abovementioned case may be stayed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. The appellant is a law abiding and is aged about 72 years, no such incident took place as alleged by opposite party No.2. He further highlighted this fact that as per the first information report the date of incident is 15.02.2015 which allegedly occurred in front of the house of the appellant and not in public place. He further submits that the present F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of an application given by the opposite party No.2 to the SC/ST Commission on 07.01.2021 i.e. after more than five years of the alleged incident only with the intention to gain some financial aid from the State Exchequer. Adding to his arguments, he further submits that in pursuance to the directions issued by the SC/ST Commission, the present F.I.R. has been lodged on 05.06.2021 under Section 323 , 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) Da and Dha of SC/ST Act, thus, it appears that the present F.I.R. has been lodged after taking legal advice from the legal expert. He further submits that as per the version of the F.I.R. as well as from the averments made in the application dated 07.01.2021, there is no possibility at all that the alleged incident took place in the public place or there was any public view.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that as per its own case set up by the opposite party No.2, that he was passing from the gate of the house of the appellant and the appellant started beating him, thus, it appears that there is no possibility of public view. He further submits that as per the injury report which was conducted after six days from the alleged incident all the injuries appear to be manufactured and are simple in nature, and the opposite party No.2 only complained for pain due to the injuries allegedly caused to him by the appellant. He further submits that the Investigating Officer of the present case without considering the material on record has submitted the charge-sheet in a most mechanical manner and learned Magistrate has also taken cognizance in a routine manner, thus, the entire proceeding is nothing but abuse of proc