No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C-482 No. 1189 of 2016 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht learned D.A.G.for the State. 3. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that an F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant on 19.02.2016 at Police Station Kotwali, Manglaur, District Haridwar, under Section 147, 149, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, with the averments that on 17.02.2016 when construction of raising height of the wall was in the process, Jabbar, Naushad, Vaseem, Azeem, and Intkhab, came there armed dandas in their hands and asked the complainant not to raise the wall; that to which the complainant said that the land belongs to him and he has its papers; that, thereafter, all of them got violent and did marpeet with the complainant and hurled caste specific abuses to him; that in order to do away his life, the applicants tried to strangulate the complainant with a rope and tore the papers belonging to his land; that on making hue & cry, Rashid, Jamshed and other persons came to the spot and saved his skin; that thereafter they went from the spot by again hurling caste specific abuses to him and extending threat to him of dire consequences. 5. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.09.2016, stayed the ongoing prosecution against the applicants only for the offences under SC/ST Act and, at the same time, spared the trial to be proceeded against them for rest of the offences under the Indian Penal Code 6. During pendency of the trial, charges levelled against the applicants were compounded in Case Crime No. 1315 of 2023 and the applicants were acquitted by the National Lok Adalat vide order dated 09.12.2023. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court has no hesitation in quashing the entire proceedings of the aforesaid Criminal Case. 11. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.269 of 2016, pending in the Court of learned Ist Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, qua the applicants, are quashed. (Alok Mahra J.) 20.06.2025 Ujjwal