DEVINA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the petition for quashing FIR No. 32 dated 23.5.2012, registered at Police Station, Chirgaon for offence, punishable under section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, Act), sections 506, 34 IPC.

(2.) The facts stated in the petition are that on 20.5.2012 learned Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 2 had visited village Tanganu in connection with legal literacy camp. The villagers had arranged food for refreshment etc. The allegation is that when persons belonging to 'Harijan caste had started to take food, the petitioners defamed the complainant party by abusing them and also called them from their caste and thereby defamed respondents No. 2, 3 in full public view. It has been alleged that petitioners called the complainant party that since they belong to 'Koli caste, there was no food arrangement for them. The complainant party was also manhandled by the petitioners. On these allegations, FIR No. 32 dated 23.5.2012 has been registered at Police Station, Chirgaon for offence, punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Act.

(3.) The petitioners were granted bail by the High Court on 12.6.2012. On the intervention of co-villagers and respectable persons of the area, the petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 have settled the matter. The respondents No. 2 and 3 had also filed an application before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rohru on 29.5.2012 stating that petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 in order to maintain cordial relations with each other have settled the matter amicably without any pressure and coercion. The settlement has been made between the parties with free consent. The respondents No. 2 and 3 had stated that they do not want to proceed with the case got registered by them before the police or with the court. The respondents No. 2 and 3 have also sworn the affidavits to this effect on 29.5.2012. It has been stated by respondents No. 2 and 3 that they have inadvertently lodged the FIR against the petitioners, who have committed no offence, as claimed.