[2025:RJ-JP:44584] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3981/2018 Sandeep Balhara S/o Shri Iqbal Singh, R/o Plot No.78, Doctors Colony, Ashok Vihar, Near Bus Stand No.7, Jagatpura Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Jaipur 2. Krishan Gopal S/o Harsahai, R/o Regaro Ka Mohalla, Jaisinghpura Khor, Ward No.90, Police Station Bharampuri, Jaipur City, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manak Chand Jain with Mr. Prayaag Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 06/11/2025 1. Petitioner has challenged FIR No.165/2018 registered at Police Station Bharampuri, District Jaipur City (North) for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 447, 451 & 452 of IPC and Section 3/10 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the complainant lodged one FIR on 22.03.2018 alleging therein that on 04.02.2018, the accused-petitioner along with other co- accused came to his agricultural land bearing Khasra No.1521 measuring 18 Bighas with sticks and iron rods in their hands and ruined the standing crop over the land and caused severe injuries to the complainant and his family. The complainant is a member of scheduled caste. The accused persons abused him and his family [2025:RJ-JP:44584] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-3981/2018] by referring to their caste, which amounts to atrocities, and they threatened to dispossess the complainant and his family out of the said land. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR are totally false and frivolous, for the reason that the part of the aforesaid land bearing Khasra No.1521 Village Jaisinghpura Khor, Tehsil Amber belongs to one Satyadheer, who executed one power of attorney dated 12.01.2018 in favour of the petitioner, authorising him to take care and maintain the aforesaid land and on the basis of such power of attorney, he was in possession of the aforesaid land in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that falsity of impugned FIR is fortified by the fact that in the FIR, it has been mentioned that on account of alleged incident on 04.02.2018, the complainant informed the police and before arrival of the police, the accused persons ran away, whereas the fact is that the information with regard to the ruckus created by the complainant and his family, information was given by the petitioner through his Mobile No.8696665111 at around 1:12 PM to the Police Control Room, which is clear by information gathered by him under the Right to Information Act and was provided to him vide letter dated 31.05.2018. Pursuant to information given by the petitioner, the police personnel came to the site and as there was a threat to peace, law and order on account of fight between the petitioner's side and complainant's side, the police arrested persons of both the sides and filed a criminal complaint under Section 107, 116(3) & 151 of Cr.P.C. which also reveals that persons from both the sides were arrested from the site in [2025:RJ-JP:44584] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-3981/2018] question and the petitioner actually never ran away. Thereafter, all the persons were released on furnishing the bond on 05.02.2018. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that under the circumstances, when the complainant as well as the petitioner both were in custody of the police, the complainant did not lodge any FIR or complaint against the petitioner alleging the said incident as mentioned in impugned FIR. It is submitted that at no point of time, while the petitioner's and complainant's side were in custody under Section 107, 116(3) & 151 of Cr.P.C., it was ever revealed by the complainant that any atrocity punishable under SC/ST Act has been committed by the petitioner. 4. It has also been submitted that even otherwise, as per Section 3(r) of the SC/ST Act, case for atrocity under Section 3 can be registered only where the incident takes place under public view and as per the FIR itself, no other person except the accused and complainant family was there at the site, hence, even otherwise, no case under SC/ST Act is maintainable by a bare perusal of the contents of FIR. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that since by virtue of aforesaid power of attorney, the petitioner was in possession of one of the shares of land bearing Khasra No.1521, Village- Jaisinghpura Khor, and for which a civil suit was already registered by the co-khatedar Satyadheer of the land, who subsequently executed power of attorney in favour of the petitioner, the FIR has been registered by the complainant with an ulterior motive, in order to wreak vengeance as well as to negotiate the things in his favour in the revenue suit. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that cross FIR No.183/2018 was also lodged by the petitioner through [2025:RJ-JP:44584] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-3981/2018] Satyadheer referring the dispute with regard to possession of the land for which the complainant side was creating an unnecessary ruckus, which culminated in a fight on 04.02.2018 and it was also mentioned that the complainant threatened the petitioner that since he belonged to SC category, he would falsely implicate the petitioner and others in a false case under the SC/ST Act. On the basis of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner prayed for quashing the FIR. 5. Despite service, nobody is present on behalf of the complainant even in the second round. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation has been conducted by the police authorities pursuant to alleged FIR and factual report dated 18.10.2024 prepared by SHO Police Station Bharampuri, Jaipur (North) has been placed before this Court, which reveals that after investigation, it has emerged that the petitioner along with one Surendra Yadav purchased 1/36 share of Khasra No.1521 through his known person Satyadheer, who also belongs to SC Category as otherwise in view of bare under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the petitioner was not entitled to purchase the agricultural land belonging to member of SC Category. It is submitted that possession of the land falling in Khasra No.1521 is of complainant and the fight took place in order to claim possession over the land and the petitioner has been found to be aggressor during investigation. Thus, after completion of investigation, charge- sheet has been prepared by the police authorities. However, on account of earlier interim order granted by this Court in the [2025:RJ-JP:44584] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-3981/2018] instant petition, the same could not be filed before the competent Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The factual report submitted by the SHO although reveals details of investigation in respect of offences under Section 147, 323, 447 & 427 of IPC for which charge-sheet has been prepared by the police authorities, however, it does not come out from the factual report that the incident with regard to any atrocity whatsoever under SC/ST Act has taken place or not. It has also not come out that the incident has taken place under public view as per Section 3-R of the Act. Thus, the investigation, prima facie, does not reveal commission of any offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act against the petitioner. 9. In the cases of Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Anr. reported in 2020 (10) SCC 710, Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2023 (17) SCC 615 Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for lodging FIR against any person for violation of provisions of SC/ST Act and it has clearly been held that only if the alleged incident has taken place in public view, any offence under SC/ST Act can be said to be made out. 10. In the light of aforesaid discussion and guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that even by believing upon the contents of FIR, no case under the provisions of SC/ST Act, 1989 is made out against the petitioner, hence, permitting prosecution of the petitioner under the provisions of [2025:RJ-JP:44584] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-3981/2018] aforesaid Act of 1989 would cause miscarriage of justice and serious prejudice to the petitioner. 11. Hence, this Court deems it just and proper to quash and set aside FIR No.165/2018 registered at Police Station Bharampuri, District Jaipur City (North) to the extent of offences under Section 3/10 of the Act of 1989. However, so far as other offences under IPC are concerned, in view of factual report submitted by learned Public Prosecutor, no interference is called for and the police authorities are at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law in relation to other offences under IPC Act as mentioned in FIR and after investigation, in charge-sheet prepared by the police authorities. 12. In view of above directions, the instant petition is hereby disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /43