The court emphasized the importance of evidence and the specific elements required to establish offenses under the SC/ST (PO) Act.

ORDER :

Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the registration of FIR as Crime No. 99/2020 at Police Station Jaithari, District Anuppur for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. Facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that, respondent No. 2 lodged report at Police Station Jaithari, District Anuppur against the petitioner alleging therein that, respondent No. 2 was raising a boundary wall along with her mother-in-law Shyamabai, husband Santosh Kol and one person Mukund Kol. The petitioner appeared on the spot and raised objection. He said that why they are raising boundary wall in his land and started hurling filthy words. He also assaulted them by means of iron rods. When respondent No. 2 Sadhna Kori, her husband Santosh, her mother-in-law Shyamabai and her neighbour Mukund Kol tried to rescue, petitioner along with other persons started beaten them. Thereafter respondent No. 2 reported the matter and lodged FIR against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the land belongs to the petitioner on which respondent No. 2 tried to raise the boundary wall. There was a civil dispute registered as Civil Suit No. 26-A/2013 between Sant Kumar, S/o. Daduram Rathore vs. Gudda, S/o. Besahu Kori and another (i.e. between the son of the present petitioner and the husband of respondent No. 2), in connection with the disputed land, on which the boundary wall was being raised by respondent No. 2. In the said civil suit, learned 1st Additional District Judge, Anuppur passed a decree in favour of the petitioner and directed the family of respondent No. 2 not to interfere in the possession of the land, which is in title of the petitioner. Despite that, the respondent No. 2 unnecessarily creating dispute and after encroaching the land tried to construct the boundary wall. The petitioner only raised an objection and stopped them to create the boundary wall, on which the respondent No. 2 party started quarrel with the petitioner and lodged a false report.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the had not utter any derogatory words pertaining to the caste of respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that, respondent No. 2 is a member of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and she wrongly took the advantage of her caste and registered a false case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PO) Act. In such circumstances, prayer is made to quash the FIR lodged against the petitioner, so also all the criminal proceedings arising out of that FIR.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner was well in knowledge that respondent No. 2 belongs to 'Kori' caste, which falls under SC/ST Castes, despite that, petitioner utter filthy words. It is further submitted that petitioner also demolished the boundary wall constructed by respondent No. 2, in such circumstances ingredients of aforementioned offence are made out against the petitioner, therefore, prayer is made for dismissal of this petition.

6. Learned panel Lawyer for the State also supported the objection raised by respondent No. 2.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Also perused the copy of judgment dated 19.12.2014 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Anuppur in Civil Suit No. 26-A/2013, annexed as A-5 (Sant Kumar S/o. Daduram Rathore vs. Gudda S/o. Besahu Kori). After perusal of the judgment, it is reflected that, respondent No. 2 and petitioner are neighbours and there was dispute of ownership and possession of land situated at Khasra No. 798/2 admeasuring 0.184 hectare of which disputed area is 0.164 hectare and new number of that disputed land is Khasra No. 798/2/Kha