Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19968 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44667 of 2024 Applicant :- Salamat Husain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh,Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This Court on 3.1.2025 directed the AGA to serve notice upon the opposite party no.2 and file compliance affidavit on or before the next date fixed in the matter. Pursuant to the order an affidavit has been submitted in compliance of the order dated 3.1.2025, dated 18.1.2025 which is taken on record. Till the dictation of the order nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2. 3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the they do not propose to file any further affidavits and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on records. 4. The case of the applicant is that with respect to construction of a house, the opposite party no.2 engaged the applicant as a contractor for the purpose construction while doing manual work. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant being contractor had raised a construction as per the specification, however the opposite party no.2 in order to avoid payment, had lodged the first information report before the Police Station Afzalgarh, District Bijnor, FIR No.0359/23 on 19.9.2023, under Sections 504 & 506 IPC read with Section 3(2)5Ka of SC/ST Act with an allegation that the applicant had committed the said offence while using caste based abuses and inflicting injuries by blow. He further submits that no date or time has been shown in the FIR for commission of the said offence. According to him, it is nothing but a dispute of money which have been given a criminal colour. He next submits that ingredients for commission of offence under SSections 504 & 506 IPC read with Section 3(2)5Ka of SC/ST Act are completely lacking. 6. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that though the FIR completely lacks the date and the time of the occurrence of the event but page 36 of the statement of the opposite party no.2 shows that it was deposed that on 8.8.2023 the said incident happened. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Plainly and simply the first information report stood lodged by the opposite party no.2 himself and further the court finds that it is case of no injury and apart from the same its a dispute of a customer with the contractor who was engaged for the purposes of making constructions. Apart from the same there happens to be a legal notice as well a civil suit pending and further the statement made under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. can be termed as an improvement sought to be made in that regard. 9. Considering the submissions of the rival parties as well as the specific stand taken by them, this Court finds that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the matter need not be proceed with accordingly the entire proceedings of criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 1073 of 2024 (State vs. Salamat Husain) arising out of Case Crime No.359 of 2023, under Sections 352, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 3(1)Da, Dha 3(2)5Ka of SC/ST Act, Police Station Afzalgarh, District Bijnor, now pending in the court of learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Bijnor stand quashed in so far as it pertains to the applicant. 10. With the above observation, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad