The prosecution must establish ownership of property by a member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes to invoke Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act; otherwise, the FIR is unsustainable.

ORDER

The case is taken up for hearing on the request made by counsel for the applicant but there is no appearance on behalf of counsel for the respondent no.2.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that he informed the counsel for the other side regarding request for out of turn hearing. It is further contended by the counsel that on previous date also, counsel for the respondent no.2 was informed regarding request for out of turn hearing but the counsel for respondent no.2 is avoiding appearance intentionally.

3. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the FIR / Crime No.0247/2020 registered at the Police Station, Manpur District Umariya in respect of the offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and ensued proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the present applicant is being prosecuted on the strength of impugned FIR lodged as regards mischief caused to the property which is owned by the member of the Scheduled Tribe. It is contended by the counsel that as per the FIR, the present applicant set the hut of complainant on fire whereby, the lose of Rs.1000/- was caused to the complainant and accordingly, the police ventured upon to register the aforesaid case under Sections 436 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is contended by the counsel that in order to bring an offence within the four corners of Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the prosecution is required to prima facie establish that the property in regard to which an offence is committed belongs to the member of Scheduled Casts & Scheduled Tribes. In the present case, there is no documents in the charge-sheet to demonstrate that the said property belongs to the complainant. It is contended by the counsel that as per the complainant in the FIR, the hut was standing on Khasra No.614 area 2 acres whereas, as per the document which is at page no.37 of the charge- sheet, there is a report in respect of Khasra No.613. Khasra No.613 has been bifurcated to many other sub-khasras but in none of the khasras number, there is mention of the name of the applicant. It is further contended by the counsel that another document has been brought on record vide Annexure-D/4 by the present applicant and as per Annexure- D/4, it is evident that the complainant has no right or his title as regards Khasra No.614, therefore, apparently, neither Khasra No.613 nor Khasra No.614 is recorded in the name of complainant. Thus, counsel submits that the entire proceedings ensued on the basis of the First Information Report deserve to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the present petition filed by the applicant deserves to be dismissed. It is contended by the counsel that there are allegations against the applicant that he set the hut of the complainant on fire which was standing on Khasra No.614 area 2 acre situated at village Karaundi Tola as a result of which, bed- sheets, mosquitos net and old clothes got burnt, causing loss to the tune of Rs.1000/-. As there are allegations of commission of offence is against the member of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes, no case for interference is made out with the First Information Report and ensued proceedings.

6. Having considered the submissions and perusal of record it reflects that the complainant approached the Police Authority and the Police Authority lodged the following FIR against the applicant. The FIR is reproduced herein:-

7. A perusal of the aforesaid FIR reflects that the complainant levelled the allegations that the present applicant set the hut of complainant on fire which was standing on Khasra No.614 area 2 acres situated at village Karaundi Tola. As a result of mischief, there was loss to the tune of Rs.1000/- to the complainant