- (1.) Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
(2.) The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved for quashing the criminal proceedings in criminal case no.378 of 2003 (State Vs. Satendra and others), under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Jani, District Meerut pending before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the opposite party no.2 firstly lodged N.C.R. on 19.11.2002 with false allegations against applicants and on 5.12.2002 moved an application under sections 155 and 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for addition of section 2/3 S.C./S.T. Act with the allegations that despite the fact that the applicants called him with caste name and abused by naming mother-sister and beaten him, but despite making complaint with Senior Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range through application for addition of offence under section 2/3 S.C./S.T. Act no action was taken; that on above application of opposite party no.2, the Magistrate concerned directed to register the case and the police of police station concerned converted the N.C.R. into case crime no.C-5 of 2002, under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act; that above N.C.R. and F.I.R. have been lodged with false and baseless allegations; that the real fact is that the first informant being Gram Pradhan was making misuse of his office and so the applicants moved an application on 27.6.2002 to S.D.M., Meerut against his illegal acts of attempting to convert the nature of public land plot no.204, supported with affidavit of applicant no.1 at annexure no.9 and on the complaint so made by the applicants, vide order dated 18.12.2002 Annexure no.10, the District Panchayat Raj Adhikari stopped the operation of Gramnidhi Accounts 1,2 and 3 by the signatures of first informant, Bhoop Chandra opposite party no.2; that in order to counter blast, the above complaint, made against the first informant, he has lodged false complaint under N.C.R. and got it converted into F.I.R. by getting it added the offence under section 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act; that the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T. Act, are not attracted in this case, as it is nowhere mentioned in the F.I.R. or application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. that "applicants are not members of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate the respondent no.2 within public view" and so no offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T. Act, is made out against the applicants; that since the allegation levelled in the report does not state that the applicants being not members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe committed insult and intimidation to opposite party no.2 and the insult and intimidation was made with an intention to humiliate the member of the S.C./S.T. community, mere and in absence of such averments insult or intimidation, if any, would not attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act; that the Investigating Officer without collecting sufficient evidence and without considering that the main ingredients, as required under the provisions of section 3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T. Act, is absent from the complaint made by first informant, has submitted charge sheet and the Magistrate concerned has taken cognizance without applying his mind to the facts of the case; that moreover upon submission of charge sheet, the Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance without issuing any summons, directly issued non bailable warrants, which is against the procedure prescribed by law; that in the circumstances, the impugned orders dated 18.2.2003 and 27.3.2003 of taking cognizance and issuing non-bailable warrants, respectively, as well as further proceedings in criminal case no.378 of 2003 (State Vs. Satendra and others), under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Jani, District Meerut pending before Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut are liable to be quashed. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied on (2009) 1 SCC (Crl) 446.;