(1.) The petitioners seek quashing of Special case no. 101 of 2022 arising out of Patuli P.S. case no. 235 dtd. 9/11/2022 under sec. 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on several grounds.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the first petitioner is a retired Central Government employee of the postal department and the second petitioner is a school teacher and none of them are engaged in the business of promotion. Suit for partition and permanent injunction is pending between the parties. The second petitioner who is one of the Directors of a Private Limited Company in the name and style of Red Pipers Private Limited filed a title suit against the private opposite party and others for recovery of possession, permanent injunction and damages wherein they have claimed to be the owners of 10.5 decimals of land in R.S. & L.R. dag no. 544, R.S. khatian no. 557, L.R. khatian no. 851, Mouza:- Briji, J.L. no. 27, District:- South 24 Parganas and have alleged that the present opposite party along with other defendants in the suit are disturbing their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and causing damage to the same. By an order passed on 19/9/2022, the trial Court granted an order of ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs therein restraining the defendants from making any further encroachment in the property and interfering with/disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs therein. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners' company applied for installation of electric connection in the plot in question and the CESC personnel who visited the plot for inspection were restrained from holding such inspection by the opposite party and his men and were in fact driven out of the property upon abusing them in filthy language. The private opposite party lodged a false complaint against the petitioners as a counter blast to the civil suit filed by one of the petitioners against him. The averments of the opposite party in the complaint do not constitute an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and allowing the said proceedings to continue shall amount to abuse of the process of law. According to the complaint, the alleged incident occurred at the residence of the opposite party and his family members intervened. Therefore it cannot be said that it occurred within public view. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the authorities in State of Haryana and others v/s. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, Salib alias Shalu alias Salim v/s. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 947, Gorige Pentaiah v/s. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531 and Hitesh Verma v/s. State of Uttarakhand and Another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 in support of his contention.
(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the private opposite party has submitted that the petitioners used offensive language within public view towards the private opposite party, thereby promoting feeling of enmity, hatred and ill-will against the members of the caste. The petitioners are directors of a company involved in promotion of land and building and the alibi taken by them with regard to their presence at the spot at the relevant time is false. In distinguishing the authorities relied upon by the petitioners, learned counsel has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that the place within public view need not be a public place and it is sufficient if the place of occurrence can be seen by the members of the public. Also, in the authority in Salib @ Shalu (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has insisted upon taking into account the overall circumstances leading to the registration of the case as well as material collected in the course of investigation since the accused was not initially named in the FIR and was subsequently arraigned. In this case, the petitioners are named in the F.I.R.