1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUARE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT Avad Dan & ors. vs. The State of Raj. S.B Criminal Misc.Petition No. 265/04 under Section 482,Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.22/04 of Police Station Mandli Distict Barmer and investigation pertaining to offence u/s 447 IPC and Section 3(1)(v)(x) of the SC/ST Act. Date of Judgment: March 07,2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. P.N.Mohnani for the petitioner. Mr. J.P.S. Choudhary,P.P. For the State. ... BY THE COURT: This Misc. Petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR NO.22/04 on the basis of which the SHO of Police Station, Mandli District Barmer is seeking to investigate the matter of commission of offence under Section 447 IPC and Section 3(1)(v)(x) of the SC/ST Act. 2 According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear from the FIR itself that even if the entire allegations levelled in the FIR are accepted to be correct then the allegations do not constitute the commission of any offence by the accused persons for which the police could have taken cognizance for investigating the matter. It appears from the facts of the case that the FIR was lodged by one Bhika Ram on 2.4.2004 in the Police Station Mandli of District Barmer.In the FIR it is alleged that the complainant has its own Patta sud house and plot at Meghwalo-ka-bas. In the western side of this property, there is property of Avad Dan s/o Prithvi Dan which includes his house and plot. In the month of January, 2004, the accused Avad Dan started construction of his house. On 23.3.2004 when the complainant was at Balotra then his widow mother and wife were at the residence in the village. The accused Avad Dan tried to remove fence of the complainant's house to raise construction for his house. When complainant's mother and wife obstructed in that, then the accused Avad Dan s/o Prithvi Dan, Chandra Dan s/o Pridhvi Dan and Dalpat Dan s/o Banney Dan Charan abused his mother and wife and pushed them away. According to the complainant, because of that the complainant's 3 mother and wife felt humiliated. When the complainant came back from Balotra in the evening, his mother and wife narrated the incident to him then the complainant went to accused Avad Dan and sought his explanation then the accused threatened to kill him and abused him by his caste name. On this FIR No.22/2.4.2004 was registered by the concerned SHO under Section 447, IPC and under Section 3(1)(v)(x) of the SC/SC Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no allegation that the accused persons encroached upon the land of the complainant nor there is allegation that they have caused any damage to the property of the complainant. There is no allegation that they gave beatings to either wife of the complainant or to the mother of the complainant. Pushing them away by the accused, at the most, can be an offence of trivial nature or at least an offence under Section 323 but for that also, in the FIR it is not mentioned who committed this offence by pushing the mother and wife of the complainant. What were the words used to humiliate the complainant, mother and wife, have not been mentioned in the FIR. The words alone could have shown that by use of those words, any offence under the SC/ST Act was committed or not. 4 The learned public prosecutor tried to submit that the matter is yet to be investigated, therefore, at this stage the FIR cannot be quashed. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the FIR. It is clear from the facts mentioned in the FIR No.22/2.4.2004 that the FIR has been lodged with respect to the alleged incident on the basis of knowledge which the complainant got from his mother and wife. The allegations are only that the petitioner Avad Dan tried to remove the fence from the plot of the complainant and tried to construct his house in the plot of the complainant,but there is no allegation that he in fact encroached upon any of the land of the complainant. At that time, the mother and wife of the complainant came on the site and as per the complainant, they were pushed away by the accused but who touched the two ladies, is not mentioned in the FIR not it constitutes any offence for which cognizance could have been taken for initiation of proceedings by the police. What words were used by the accused, are not mentioned in the FIR and, therefore, without those words in the FIR, the case under the provisions of SC/ST Act could not have been registered. 5 The allegations are vague also and in fact appears to have been levelled only due to some quarrel at the most if it happened. In view of the above, this Misc. Petition deserves to be allowed and hence allowed and the FIR No.22/2.4.2004 is quashed. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. mlt.