The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and in rarest of rare cases, and a prima facie case must be established for the charges to be framed.

ORDER :—

The present petition is filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashment of the FIR and charge-sheet in Crime No. 0436/2018 for the alleged offence under sections 294, 506, Indian Penal Code read with section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “SC and ST Act, 1989”) and all subsequent proceedings.

2. This is second visit of the present applicant under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Initially on 15-10-2018 an FIR in Crime Case Number 436/2018 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Dewas for the offences punishable under sections 294, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC and ST Act, 1989 and section 25/27 of the Arms Act against the present applicant and his father Mannulal Garg. Earlier along his father Mannulal Garg the applicant filed a petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashment of the FIR dated 15-10-2018. The said petition was disposed off by order dated 27-3-2019 with the following directions:—

“Undisputedly, the advocate chambers are constructed in the premises of the District Court, Dewas and just adjacent thereto is the petrol pump being run by the petitioners. If there is any doubt or confusion as regards the dividing line through the boundary wall or barbed wire fencing, in all fairness, the respondent No. 2 should have consulted the District Judge and sought assistance instead of picking up fight with petitioners. 9. Though there is substantial force in the submission advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, but, this Court is of the view that in the fitness of things, it shall be appropriate to direct the Superintendent of Police, Dewas for intervention in the matter and use his good office ensuring peace and tranquility settling the matter. If required, he may also seek guidance from the District Judge, Dewas as vulnerability of dividing line of boundary wall involves the ownership land of the petitioners and premises of the District Court. At the same time, the Superintendent of Police shall also bestow conscious consideration upon the complaint filed by the petitioners vide Annexures P/11, P/12 and P/13 while carrying our directions of this Court and take a decision. However, no coercive action shall be taken against either of the party.”

3. It is undisputed that the mediation between the parties failed and after investigation, the respondent No. 1 filed a charge-sheet against the present applicant in the said case for commission of offence under sections 294, 506 and section 3(1)(r) and (s) of SC and ST Act, 1989. The case was closed against co-accused Mannulal Garg and the charge-sheet was not filed for commission of offences under section 34, Indian Penal Code and section 25/27 of the Arms Act. It is also not in dispute that the charges have yet not been framed by the trial Court.

4. The facts of the case are that wife of the petitioner owns a petrol pump namely M/s Maa Kailadevi Motors which is situated on land comprising of Survey Nos. 640, 645, 641 and 642, Patwari Halka No. 18, Indore Dewas Road, Dewas. The District Court, Dewas premises is just adjacent to the land of petrol pump of the petitioner. The petitioner’s land is separated from the District Court premises by barbed wire fence. For the purpose of construction work, for the construction of Advocates Chambers in the District Court Dewas premises was under progress. The raw material of construction was dumped and parked on the main entrance gate of the District Court premises due to which heavy vehicles like trucks and dumpers could not pass through the main entrance gate. The respondent No. 2 former president of Dewas District Court Bar Association requested the petitioner to temporarily permit the movement of vehicles carrying construction material into the District Court premises through the petitioner’s vacant land for a period of one month. It