JUDGMENT

Per: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was initially filed for quashing of the FIR No. 198 of 2021, under Sections 147, 153A, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act"), Police Station Jhabrera, District Haridwar and related reliefs. During the pendency of petition, charge sheet was submitted in the case. Thereafter, by way of amendment, the petitioners have also sought quashing of the charge sheet as well as the cognizance order 22.07.2021, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Special Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Pankaj Chaudhary and another.

2. Facts necessary to consider the controversy, briefly stated, are as hereunder:-

Respondent no. 3 filed an FIR on 19.05.2021, at 09:48 P.M. at Police Station Jhabrera, under Sections147, 153A, 504 & 506, IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. According to it, on that date, Deshraj Karnwal (“the victim"), a Member of Legislative Assembly visited Primary Health Centre (for short, “PHC"), Jhabrera at about 11:30 A.M. When the victim was still inspecting the PHC, both the petitioners along with three unknown persons, reached at the spot and started making a video. They abused and threatened the victim to life. They insulted the victim saying that Chamar Gittal, we have committed a mistake by electing you as a Member of Legislative Assembly. You are working against gujjars. Thereafter, the petitioners and others made the video of this incident viral, so as to promote enmity between different groups of the society. Initially, this FIR was sought to be quashed.

3. After investigation in the matter, charge sheet was filed against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) & (s) of the Act. On 22.07.2021, cognizance was taken on the charge sheet and proceedings of the case were initiated. It has also been sought to be quashed by the petitioners.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that in order to politicize the whole incident, and for some ulterior purposes and motives, the FIR has been lodged in the case; perusal of the video footage of the incident reveals that as such, no threats were extended to the victim and no caste coloured remarks were made; the victim is a politically powerful person, therefore, under his influence, FIR was lodged; It is mala fide.

5. The informant, who is respondent no. 3 has filed his counter affidavit and categorically denied the averments made in the petition. According to respondent no. 3, the victim was given threat to his life and lewd language was used against him; the victim was harassed because of his caste.

6. State has also filed its counter affidavit. According to it, the averments have been made by the petitioners in order to safeguard themselves from the clutches of law. The Investigating Officer found that the petitioners have active role in the present case; they have been identified by the video clips and by the eyewitnesses; the petitioners have committed heinous offences;

7. The video clips of the incident and its transcription is also on record.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners makes the following arguments:-

1. Perusal of the video clippings reveals that no offence is made out. The petitioners did not extend any threat or used any caste coloured remarks against the victim. The FIR is nothing, but a cooked up story.

2. Being a member of Public, the petitioners only raised their grievances against their representative, who is the victim. The petitioners did not in any manner insult the victim.

3. The provisions of the Act are not applicable in the case because the victim has not been humiliated in any manner.

4. In any case, if anyone has uttered caste coloured remarks that also does not make out any case p