Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34982 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7106 of 2020 Applicant :- Nafasat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anothers Counsel for Applicant :- Raja Ullah Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma,G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including impugned charge sheet dated 17.11.2017 and cognizance / summoning order dated 27.01.2018, of Special Case No. 185 of 2018 (State Vs. Nafasat), arising out of Case Crime No. 2652 of 2017, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Puwayan, District Shahjahanpur, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 2, Shahjahanpur. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report of this case was lodged by opposite party no. 2 making false and vague allegations. The complainant has not sustained any injury. In the first information report besides applicant, one Meraj and Jiyaullah were also named but they have been exonerated during investigation. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant has stated that he was digging a pit at gram samaj land. The allegation that applicant has abused the informant by using caste indicative words or threatened him, is wholly false. It was stated that applicant has no knowledge about impugned summoning order and thus, he could not file the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. well within time. It was submitted that only general and vague allegations have been levelled and no case is made out against the applicant. 4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 have opposed the application and submitted that there are clear allegations that applicant has abused the opposite party no. 2 by using caste indicative words and he has snatched spade from him and threatened to kill him. It was submitted that applicant was summoned vide order dated 27.01.2018 and after that bailable warrants were also issued against him but the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed after two years. Referring to statements of complainant and witnesses, it was submitted that a prima facie case is made out. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 7. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that opposite party no. 2 / informant has lodged first information report under section 504, 506 IPC and section 3(1)(da) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as SC/ST Act), alleging that on 21.10.2017 he was digging at gram samaj land for drainage of water and that applicant and co-accused Meraj and Jiyaullah have objected the digging of land and hurled caste indicative abuse. It was further alleged that applicant and co-accused persons have attacked the informant with spade, however the informant escaped. It was further alleged that the applicant and co-accused persons have threatened that in case the informant again dared to dig the land, they would kill him. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant has alleged that on 21.10.2017 while he was digging at gram sabha land for drainage of water, applicant and co-accused Meraj and Jiyaullah came there and objected digging of land and hurled caste indicative abuse. The informant has further alleged that applicant has snatched spade from the informant and threatened that in case informant dared to dig the land, they would kill him. It appears that during the investigation the involvement of co-accused Meraj and Jiyaullah was not found and they were exonerated and charge sheet was submitted against applicant for offence under Section 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da) of S.C./S.T. Act. By impugned summoning order the applicant has been summoned for offences under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (X) of S.C./S.T. Act. 8. Before proceeding further it would be apt to peruse the provisions of unamended Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, which reads as under: "3. Punishments for offences of atrocities(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;" 9. In case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC 7, Hon’ble Apex Court held that an offence under Section 3(1)(r) SC/ ST Act is not established merely on the fact that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste, unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 668, the Apex Court held that every insult or intimidation would not amount to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 unless, such insult or intimidation is targeted at the victim because he is a member of a particular Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 10. In the instant matter it may be seen that the informant has no where stated that he is member of scheduled caste or tribe. Further, as per version of the informant, he was digging at the public land which was objected by the applicant. There is nothing to show that informant was insulted or humiliated on account of his caste or tribe, rather applicant has stopped the informant from digging the public land belonging to Gram Sabha. In view of attending facts, mere vague allegation that applicant has abused the informant by using caste indicative words would not make out a case under section 3(1)(X) SC / ST Act. The informant has not even clarified that what specific abuse or words were used by the applicant. Merely a general and vague allegation has been made that applicant has abused by using caste indicative words. Thus, no case under Section 3(1)(X) of S.C./S.T. Act is made out. 11. So far case under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. is concerned, in view of allegation made in the first information report and statement of informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it can not be said that no prima facie case is made out. Thus, no case for quashing of entire proceedings / charge sheet is made out. 12. In view of aforesaid, the summoning of applicant under Section 3(1)(X) S.C./S.T. Act is quashed. The impugned summoning order stands altered to this extent. The case against applicant under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. would proceed further in accordance with law. As case under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. is triable by the Court of Magistrate thus, the same may be transferred by the Court concerned to the Court of Magistrate concerned. 13. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 SK Srivastava Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad