This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the charge sheet, summoning order and the entire proceedings in criminal case no. 5826/2005 (case crime no. 48 of 2005), State Vs. Rahmat Ali, u/s 504/506 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989 {hereinafter to be referred as the SC/ST Act}.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

3. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 – Ilam Singh lodged an FIR on 15.7.05 against the petitioner stating therein that he is a member of schedule caste. On 30.6.2005, the petitioner had taken the son of complainant, namely, Naresh and other boys i.e. Pappu, Chjootu, Chatra Pal, Mukesh and Ravindra for filling up the manure in the bags. All these boys filled up 180 bags on manure but thereafter, they felt scorching on their hands and other parts of their bodies where the said manure bags had touched. After cleaning those parts with water, it started blistering and water came out from those parts, for which they were admitted in the government hospital. On 15.7.2005, when the complainant met with the petitioner, he uttered caste indicated words and also directed them not to meet him again otherwise they would face the same consequence as his son and others have faced. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and after that charge sheet was filed on the basis of which the trial court vide order dated 28.10.2005 summoned the petitioner u/s 504/506 IPC and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. Hence this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that none of the offences, on which the petitioner has been summoned by the trial court, are made out against the petitioner. I find force in this argument. Before further discussion it is pertinent to mention Section 504 IPC which reads as under :-

504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace – Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

5. However, on a bare perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent no. 2, it does not reveal in any way that the petitioner insulted the respondent no. 2, thereby giving provocation to him, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, and as such the necessary ingredients of Section 504 IPC are not made out against the petitioner.

6. Now, coming to Section 506 IPC, which provides for punishment for criminal intimidation, it is necessary to mention the definition of criminal intimidation which has been provided under Section 503 IPC, which also reads as under :-

“Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation”.

7. However, on perusing the complaint filed by the respondent no. 2 against the petitioner, it does not reveal that the petitioner threatened the complainant with any injury to his person, reputation or property with intent to cause alarm to him, or to cause him to do an act which he was not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the executing of such, threat, and as such, the necessary ingredients of criminal intimidation too