Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) This criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.12/2013 dated 10.02.2013 lodged at Police Station, Mathaniya, Jodhpur Rural for the offences punishable under sections 143, 341, 323 IPC read with section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989' hereinafter). The impugned FIR has been lodged by the respondent No.2 alleging therein that on 09.02.2013 at about 8:30 - 9:00 PM when he was returning from agricultural field of Jagdish resident of Vinayakpura Bhawad, where he has been working as a watchman from last two months, suddenly the petitioners came there in a Bolero vehicle and forcibly took him away to the riverbed in the said vehicle and thereafter hurled abuses to him and assaulted him in the night. It is alleged that the petitioners brutally assaulted him and threw him in the riverbed assuming him to be dead and fled away in the said vehicle. The complainant has further stated that he was in weary condition and after some time when he felt himself better, he went to his house with great difficulty and narrated the incident to his family members. It is alleged that the main reason of assaulting the complainant is that a day prior to the lodgement of the complaint, he stopped the accused-persons from entering into the field of Jagdish. On receiving this report, the police registered the impugned FIR against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 143, 341, 323 IPC read with section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned FIR while contending that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case at the instance of one Jagdish, who bears enmity with the petitioners. It is also contended that the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, was not able to pinpoint where the incident took place. It is further contended that as per the complainant, the incident took place in the dead of night, therefore, it was not possible for any person to witness the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the police has wrongly registered the FIR for the offences punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 as the alleged offence cannot be said to be committed by the petitioners in public view. It is contended that as per the allegations contained in the FIR, the alleged incident took place at an isolated place i.e. riverbed and no other person had witnessed the said incident and, therefore, it cannot be said that any case for offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 is made out against the petitioners.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P. represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad & Anr., reported in 2011 CRI.L.J. 2594 He has also placed reliance on decision of this Court rendered in Dilip Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1998(2) R.C.C. 21 as well as the decisions of Bombay High Court and Jharkhand High Court respectively rendered in Dr. Sau. Suryakanta Ramesh Ajmera v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2011 CRI.L.J. 1803 and in Md. Nisarul Haq v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in 2011 CRI.L.J. 2755.;