Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or No Date COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures C-482 No. 1302 of 2016 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicants.

2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned D.A.G. for the State.

3. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that an F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants on 17.02.2016 at Police Station Kotwali, Manglaur, District Haridwar, with the averments that the complainant is working in the capacity of a Chaukidar in a company; that on 17.02.2016 at about 03:00 a.m., the applicants armed with danda and licensed firearm came at the spot with the intention to take possession of the land and when the complainant resisted, they hurled caste specific abuses to him, did marpeet with him and threatened him of dire consequences by showing the licensed firearm; that on making hue & cry, Shamim and Bundu came to the spot and saved his skin

4. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that offence under Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act is not made out against the applicants; that the offences punishable under SC/ST Act are added only to pressurize the applicants with malafide intention and ulterior motive to keep applicants in jail, because other sections are non-cognizable and bailable offence.

5. A bare perusal of the F.I.R. would reveal that dispute is regarding a piece of land. Since the dispute is regarding possession of land and any dispute arising on account of possession of the property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that he/she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another”, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710, has held that offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. The parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property.

7. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court has no hesitation in quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid Criminal Case so far it relates to offence punishable under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act.

8. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application is allowed and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.277 of 2016, pending in the Court of learned Ist Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, so far it relates to offence punishable under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, qua the applicants, are quashed.

9. This Court is not inclined to interfere as regards the proceedings pending against the applicants for the offences