The court emphasized that allegations under the SC/ST Act require proof of the accused's awareness of the victim's caste, and misuse of the Act for personal vendetta is impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

Prashant Kumar, J.

1. Before proceeding with the case, at the very outset, upon questioning about the maintainability of the instant Application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., Shri Gaurav Kakkar, appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 5 submits that he has no objection to the maintainability of the application. On his statement, the Court is proceeding with the instant application.

2. Heard Shri Avneesh Tripathi, Advocate and Shri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants, Shri Gaurav Kakkar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 5 and Shri Shashi Dhar Pandey & Shri Sudhir Kumar Chandraul, learned AGA for the State-opposite parties and perused the record.

3. The instant applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants Alka Sethi and her husband Dhruv Sethi seeking quashing of the entire proceedings as well as the impugned summoning and cognizance order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Saharanpur in Sessions Case No. 182 of 2024 and the impugned charge-sheet No. 77 of 2023 dated 27.11.2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 78 of 2023 (State vs. Dhruv Sethi and another), under Sections 332, 341, 353, 389, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Biharigarh, District Saharanpur.

4. As per the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., on 18.08.2023 at about 1:40 p.m. when informant-Lekhpal-opposite party no. 5 was standing outside the road of village Satpura and inspecting some Khashra numbers, at that time applicant alongwith his wife came there and started abusing him with filthy caste related language and has also stated that if he do not follow his dictates, he will get him implicated in the case of misbehaving with his wife as well as in case of corruption. Applicant had also detained the informant, later he was released on intervention of S.H.O., Biharigarh.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the genesis of the present case arose from a piece of land which was purchased by the applicants, who are husband and wife and resident of Dehradun. This land in Saharanpur was purchased by the applicant from Lokesh Mittal through registered sale deed dated 02.08.2016 executed in favour of Dhruv Sethi (applicant no. 2). Pursuant to the sale deed his name was mutated in the revenue record and thereafter, applicant being co-sharer of the land filed a suit under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code before S.D.M. Behat, Saharanpur in the year 2021 for division of holding, which was decreed in favour of the applicant vide order dated 09.06.2022 and 09.01.2023. Thereafter the applicants sought for a demarcation.

6. He further submits that despite the order of S.D.M., concerned officers (opposite party no. 5) were delaying the process of demarcation. He further submits that the local land mafia’s having influence in that area and also over the revenue as well as the local police official hatched a conspiracy and wanted to grab the land of the applicants, for which they were regularly torturing the applicants. To get rid of this, applicants lodged a F.I.R. against the miscreants in Case Crime No. 121 of 06.05.2022 and Case Crime No. 138 of 19.05.2022.

7. He further submits that being aggrieved with the high handedness of Revenue as well as Police officials, applicant had moved complaint on IGRS/Dashboard on 12.08.2022 and 27.01.2023 for appropriate action along with the relevant photograph and Video clips, which remained pending.

8. He further submits that as the order of S.D.M., Behat for demarcation of his land, was not being complied, so they have moved various applications for execution of order, but all were in vain. However on repeated approach S.D.M., Behat inspected the spot and fixed a date i.e. 18.08.2023 for demarcation. He further submits that on 18.08.2023 on being inquired about the demarcation, Kan