1 S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1431/2008 SANDEEP SINGH & ANOTHER V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER. DATE OF ORDER ::: 16/12/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr. H.S.S.Kharlia, for Petitioner (s). Mr. V. R.Mehta, Public Prosecutor. Petitioners request for quashing of FIR No.80/08, Police Station, Banera, registered for the offences of Sections 143, 451, 323, IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. Brief facts, as argued and as per copies submitted are that on 22.3.2008, at 1 O'clock afternoon, one Sohan Lal respondent No.2 submitted a written report at police station, narrating that at around 12 O'clock, when his son was sitting on a hotel-Ladu Lal-his sons and others came and started beating him and when hotel person (may be woman) intervened, they inflicted blow with stick on her – came police personnels and these persons ran away – son and wife of Ramswaroop are injured and they have also been threatened of bringing gun and finishing them. As per endorsement of police officials, proceedings under Section 107, Cr.P.C. and Section 323, IPC, initiated. It appears that a complaint under Sections 107 and 151, Cr.P.C., also submitted. On 24.3.08, respondent No.2 submitted a complaint before the Court of ACJM, alleging some details of the above incident and further narrated that son Kailash referred to Bhilwara hospital, where he is admitted and police has not acted – when forwarded under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C., FIR registered for the offences under Sections 143, 451 and 323, IPC and Section 3 (1) (10) of the SC/ST Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that for the very same incident, on written report of 22.3.08, proceedings as above, for non- cognizable offence, Section 323, IPC, were initiated, so the subsequent complaint before the Magisterial Court (forwarded under Section 156 (3), 2 Cr.P.C.) is not maintainable - and alleged further and same incident are not described in their first report of 22.3.08 – that too exaggerated is subsequent complaint – entire new facts are in subsequent complaint – offence of Section 3 (1) (10) of the SC/ST Act is not made out as alleged acts are not alleged to have been committed because of caste – such registration of FIR, after initiation of proceedings under Section 107, Cr.P.C., and Selection 323, IPC, is nothing but plain abuse of the process. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even in first report dated 22.3.08, straight positive are allegations of beating to son and a woman. Considered arguments and perused FIR and copies of report of 22.3.08 etc. As stated above, report of 22.3.08 describes incident and also that son and wife of Ramswaroop were injured. As per copy of the complaint it also transpires that it was a day of Holi festival and police personnel were patrolling – without probing and going into further details, it cannot be said that subsequent filing of complaint and registration of FIR is abuse on consort to law. Proceedings for prevention of breach of peace may hardly ban or restrict initiation of proceedings of substantive offence. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of force and is to be rejected. The petition is rejected. (C. M. TOTLA), J. scd