JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred for quashing the chargesheet as well as the summoning order dated 25.06.2020, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2020, State vs. Hitesh Verma by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh (for short "the case"). By the impugned summoning order, the petitioner has been summoned under Sections 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act").

2. The case is based on FIR lodged on 11.12.2019 by respondent no.2, under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and Sections 452, 504 and 506 IPC. According to it, on 10.12.2019 morning, at 9:00 petitioners and others entered into the premises of the informant, abused her with caste coloured remarks and threatened her to life. After investigation, charge sheet under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act has been submitted against the petitioner. Based on it, proceedings of the case were instituted and on 25.06.2020 the petitioner has been summoned. It is the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that in the instant case, FIR was lodged against various persons, but I.O. did not find involvement of other persons, except the petitioner; it is the informant herself, who had occupied the land belonging to the petitioner; it is the case of misuse of provisions of the Act. Reference has been made to the law as laid down in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2009) 1 SCC(Cri) 446 to argue that in the FIR, the averments have not been made to attract the provisions of the Act.

4. Learned State counsel would argue that the occurrence is admitted because an FIR has also been lodged against the informant and others. Who is aggressor would be determined at the trial; in the instant case, provisions of the Act are attracted.

5. It is admitted on behalf of the petitioner that with regard to the occurrence, the FIR was lodged against the informant and others on 11.12.2019. Copy of the FIR is filed as Annexure No. 5 to the petition. FIR in the instant case reveals that the incident occurred on 10.12.2019 at 10:00 AM, whereas, according to the FIR, lodged against the informant and others, the incident occurred on 11.12.2019, at 9:45 AM. Date and time of incident is different in both the FIRs. Therefore, as such, they may not be said to be cross cases. It is admitted that informant and others are facing trial under Sections 323 and 504 IPC (Copy of the summoning order against the informant and others is Annexure No.6 to the petition).

6. In the case of Gorige Pentaiah (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles as to under which circumstances the provisions of the Act would be attracted. In para 6 of the judgment, Hon'ble Court observed as hereunder:

"6. In the instant case, the allegation of Respondent no.3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.05.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basis ingredients of Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (Respondent 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate Respondent 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law."

7. Subsequent to the judgment in the case of Gorige Pentaiah (supra), i