The mere use of the term 'Harijan Vas' does not constitute an intentional insult under the Atrocities Act unless linked to caste identity and intended to humiliate.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Manish J. Patel, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. H.K.Patel, learned APP for the respondent State and Mr. Manoj Shrimali, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.No.11203030220260 of 2022 registered with Keshod Police Station, Junagadh, for the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and other proceedings arising therefrom.

3. At the instance of respondent No.2, FIR came to be filed against the applicant alleging that, earlier in the year 2020 – 2022, due to illegal excavation of sand from village pond, dispute arose between the applicant and complainant and his community persons, and complaint was filed against the applicant. It is further alleged that, by keeping that grudge, the applicant told the complainant and other members of scheduled caste to remove their shops and thereby, the applicant issued notice for removal of encroachments mentioning word “Harijan Vas”. In this regard, FIR came to be filed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that, the complaint is nothing, but an abuse of process of law and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the offence. He has further submitted that, the applicant is Sarpanch of Shergadh village and due to enmity between two group, complaint is filed. Even bare perusal of the complaint, it reveals that no offence under the Atrocities Act is made out. As the applicant has rendered his services in his ofÏcial capacity as a Sarpanch and under the instructions of Taluka Development OfÏcer to remove encroachment, notice came to be issued, in which, the applicant has not uttered a single word or made any castiest remarks relating to the caste of the complainant. Merely mentioning the area/location name as “Harijan vas” does not amount to insult the complainant. He has further submitted that, to remove the encroachments made on government land, the applicant being Sarpanch of village has issued show-cause notice for removal of encroachments on 22.04.2022, while, in the complaint, reference being made of earlier complaint filed in the year 2020. Therefore, the offence under the Atrocities Act are not attracted.

4.2 Mr. Patel has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710 and Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 469 and contended that, the applicant has not uttered any abusive word/s and therefore, the provisions of Atrocities Act are not attracted.

In view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the applicant prays to allow present application.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed present application and submitted that, the applicant is having chequered history and he used to indulge himself in such act. Earlier in 2020, same nature of complaint was filed. Total 8 complaints have been filed against the applicant. Even the applicant has used the said word is admitted and undisputed fact and in this regard, Taluka Development OfÏcer has also made a report to the concerned authority. The applicant is habitual to indulge in such activity and therefore, the applicant with an intent to insult the caste of the complainant, mentioned such word in a notice issued for removal of encroachments. In view of the above, he has submitted that, present application may not be entertained.

6. Learned APP has opposed the application and by adopting the submissions made by respondent No.2 contended that, present applicant has committed an offence as alleged in the complaint and he has past antecedent. In this view of the matter, present application does not deserve any consideration.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the respecti