HITESH VERMAversusTHE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

                        [2020] 9 S.C.R. 593                              593


                         HITESH VERMA                                    A
                                  v.
           THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 2020)
                       NOVEMBER 05, 2020                                 B
       [L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA AND
                 AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
       s. 482 – Petition under – For quashing charges u/ss. 452,         C
504 and 506 IPC and u/ss. 3(1)(x) (Substituted as 3(1)(r) by Act
No. 1 of 2016) and 3(1)(e) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Dismissed by High Court
– Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Offences under the Act not
established – Hence the charges under the Act, quashed – Charges
                                                                         D
under IPC to be tried by competent Court.
      s. 482 – Quashing of charge-sheet in part – Held: There is no
prohibition under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in part.
      Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989:                                                   E
       s.3(1)(x) (substituted as 3(1)(r) by Act No. 1 of 2016) –
Applicability of – Held: Basic ingredients of the offence u/s. 3(1)(r)
are that there is intentional insult or intimidation with intent to
humiliate a member of SC or ST and that such insult or intimidation
should have taken place at any place within public view – All the        F
insults and intimidations will not come within purview of the offence
under the Act – In the facts of the present case, the Act is not
applicable.
      Disposing of the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled                   G
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted to improve
the social economic conditions of the vulnerable sections of the
society as they have been subjected to various offences such as
indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have been
deprived of life and property as well. The object of the Act is thus
                                                                         H
                                593
594            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A     to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations and
      harassment and commit the offence as defined under Section 3 of
      the Act. The Act is thus intended to punish the acts of the upper
      caste against the vulnerable section of the society for the reason
      that they belong to a particular community. [Para 10][600-D-E]
B           1.2 The charge-sheet filed in the present case was for an
      offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section stands
      substituted by Act No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016. The substituted
      corresponding provision is Section 3(1)(r). The basic ingredients
      of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as
      “1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a
C     member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any
      place within public view”. [Paras 11 and 12][600-E, G]
            1.3 The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would
      indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with
      an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
D     Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not
      be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is
      on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
      Tribe. [Para 13][600-G-H; 601-A]
             1.4 An offence under the Act would be made out when a
E     member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to
      indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title
      over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the
      indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right
      to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the
F     appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the
      civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction
      of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in
      accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is
      not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled
      Caste. [Para 13][601-A-C]
G
           1.5 Therefore, offence under the Act is not established
      merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled
      Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of
      Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim

H
     HITESH VERMA v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                          595


belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are            A
litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of
abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If
such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under
Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out. [Para 18][603-D]
      Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) SCC               B
      OnLine SC 1104; Gerige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra
      Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 531 : [2008] 12 SCR
      623 – relied on.
      Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of Maharashtra
      & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 789 : [2009] 2 SCR 382 –                     C
      distinguished.
      1.6 Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or
intimidation in “any place within public view”. In the present case,
the offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of
the building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any   D
member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time
of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that
the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not
made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet,
certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those
were the persons present within the four walls of the building.        E
Therefore, it cannot be said to be a place within public view as
none was said to be present within the four walls of the building
as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet. [Paras 14 and 15][601-D;
602-C-E]
      Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel            F
      & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 435 : [2008] 12 SCR 132 –
      relied on.
      2.1 If there is a false and unsubstantiated FIR, the
proceedings under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked. [Para
19][603-F]                                                             G
      Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of
      Maharashtra & Anr. (2018) 6 SCC 454 : [2018] 4 SCR
      877; Union of India v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
      (2020) 4 SCC 761 : [2019] 12 SCR 1125 –
      referred to.                                                     H
596            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A           Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors. (2020)
            4 SCC 727 – relied on.
            2.2 There is no prohibition under the law for quashing the
      charge-sheet in part. In a petition filed under Section 482
      Cr. P.C, the High Court is required to examine as to whether its
B     intervention is required for prevention of abuse of process of law
      or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In view of the facts of
      the case, the charges against the appellant under Section 3(1)(r)
      of the Act are not made out. Consequently, the charge-sheet to
      that extent is quashed. The FIR in respect of other offences will
      be tried by the competent Court. [Paras 23, 24 and 25][605-C-D;
C     606-A-B]
            Ishwar Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
            & Anr. (2018) 13 SCC 612 : [2017] 11 SCR 145 –
            relied on.
D                           Case Law Reference
      [2008] 12 SCR 132            relied on              Para 14
      [2018] 4 SCR 877             relied on              Para 19
      [2019] 12 SCR 1125           relied on              Para 19
E     (2020) 4 SCC 727             relied on              Para 20
      [2008] 12 SCR 623            relied on              Para 21
      [2009] 2 SCR 382             distinguished          Para 21
      [2017] 11 SCR 145            relied on              Para 23
F           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
      707 of 2020.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2020 of the High Court
      of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Misc. Application No. 507 of
      2020.
G
            Ayush Negi, Ms. Manini Roy, Atul Sharma, Rahul Sharma, Kapil
      Pant, Advs. for the appearing parties.



H
         HITESH VERMA v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                                 597


          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                              A
          HEMANT GUPTA, J.
      1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the
High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital on 20.7.2020 whereby the petition
filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19731 for quashing the charge-sheet as well as the summoning           B
order dated 25.6.2020 was dismissed.
       2. The FIR No. 173 in question was lodged by the respondent No.
2 on 11.12.2019 at 23:24 hours in respect of an incident alleged to have
occurred on 10.12.2019 at 10:00 hours against the appellants and others.
The FIR was lodged for the offences under Sections 452, 504, 506 IPC              C
and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(e) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19892. The said FIR, when
translated, reads as under:
          “Respected SHO with respect of registering of FIR, the
          complainant is presently resident of Gram New Bajeti Patti              D
          Chandak Tehsil & District Pithoragarh. I am constructing my house
          on my Khet No. 6195, 6196 & 6199 but Banshilal, Pyarelal S/o
          Late Har Lal, Hitesh Verma S/o Sh. Pyarelal, Pawan Verma S/o
          Banshilal, Uma Verma w/o Pyarelal and their Nepali Domestic
          help Raju from past 6 months are not allowing the applicant to          E
          work on her fields. All the above persons used to abuse the
          applicant her husband and other family members and use to give
          death threats and use Caste coloured abuses. On 10.12.2019 at
          around 10 am, all these persons entered illegally in to four walls of
          her building and started hurling abuses on myself and my labourers
          and gave death threats and used castes’ remarks/abuses and took         F
          away the construction material such as Cement, Iron, Rod, Bricks.
          The Applicant is a Scheduled Caste and all of the above person
          uses castes’ remarks/abuses (used bad language) and said that
          you are persons of bad caste and that we will not let you live in
          this mohalla/vicinity. Respect Sir, the applicant and her family has    G
          threat to her life from such persons. Thus, it is requested that an
          FIR may be lodged against such persons and necessary action
          may be taken against them…..”
1   For short, the ‘Code’
2   For short, “the Act”.                                                         H
598               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A           3. Pursuant to the FIR filed by Respondent No. 2, Police filed a
      report disclosing offences under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section
      3(1)(x) of the Act, cognizance for the same was taken by the Trial Court
      on 25.6.2020. It is the said order which was challenged along with the
      charge-sheet before the High Court, which was unsuccessful.
B           4. On the other hand, on the basis of the statement of Mr. Pawan
      Verma, an FIR No. 174 at about 23:47 hours was lodged on 11.12.2019
      in respect of an occurrence which had taken place allegedly at 9:45
      hours on 11.12.2019. A charge-sheet in the said matter has been submitted
      against respondent No. 2 and others. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial
      Magistrate, Pithoragarh had taken cognizance for the offences under
C     Sections 323 and 354 IPC against respondent No. 2 and others on
      2.7.2020.
             5. The Appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court by
      way of a petition under Section 482 of the Code to challenge the charge-
      sheet and the order taking cognizance. The Appellant relied upon Gerige
D     Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.3 wherein the allegation
      was of abusing the complainant in the name of their caste and this Court
      quashed the complaint. The attention of the High Court was drawn to
      another judgment reported as Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State
      of Maharashtra & Ors.4 wherein this Court refused to quash the FIR
E     on the ground that the caste of the accused was not mentioned in the
      first information report. The High Court found that both the
      abovementioned cases dealt with the same issue with regard to
      applicability of the provisions of the Act. It was observed by the High
      Court that the appellant had categorically admitted that the informant
      belonged to Scheduled Caste and that she and her labourers were abused.
F     Therefore, the provisions of the Act were found to be applicable and
      accordingly, after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted. The
      High Court dismissed the petition with the aforesaid findings.
             6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the disputes
      relating to the property are pending before the Civil Court and that, the
G     present FIR has been filed on patently false grounds by respondent No.
      2 only to harass the appellant and to abuse the process of law. It is
      argued that the allegations levelled in the FIR and the subsequent report
      submitted by the Police after investigations does not disclose any offence
      3   (2008) 12 SCC 531
H
      4   (2009) 3 SCC 789
      HITESH VERMA v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                                599
                 [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

under the Act. Furthermore, it is argued that the report neither discloses    A
the caste of the informant nor the allegations are that they were made in
public view. Also, the offending words are not purported to be made for
the reason that the informant is a person belonging to Scheduled Caste.
       7. The learned counsel for the State on the contrary, submitted
that during investigations, certain persons have supported the version of     B
the informant. It is argued on behalf of respondent No. 2 that in fact the
appellant and his family are encroacher on the informant’s land. Therefore,
the appellant was rightly not granted any indulgence by the High Court.
      8. Against the backdrop of these facts, it is pertinent to refer to
the Statement of Objects and Reasons of enactment of the Act. It is           C
provided as under:
      “Despite various measures to improve the socio-economic
      conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, they
      remain vulnerable. They are denied number of civil rights. They
      are subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations and        D
      harassment. They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprived
      of their life and property. Serious crimes are committed against
      them for various historical, social and economic reasons.
      2. Because of the awareness created amongst the Scheduled
      Castes and the Scheduled Tribes through spread of education,            E
      etc., they are trying to assert their rights and this is not being
      taken very kindly by the others. When they assert their rights and
      resist practices of untouchability against them or demand statutory
      minimum wages or refuse to do any bonded and forced labour,
      the vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise them.
      When the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes try to               F
      preserve their self-respect or honour of their women, they become
      irritants for the dominant and the mighty. Occupation and
      cultivation of even the Government allotted land by the Scheduled
      Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is resented and more often these
      people become victims of attacks by the vested interests. Of late,      G
      there has bene an increase in the disturbing trend of commission
      of certain atrocities like making the Scheduled Caste persons eat
      inedible substances like human excreta and attacks on and mass
      killings of helpless Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
      and rape of women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the
                                                                              H
600             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                               [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A            Scheduled Tribes. Under the circumstances, the existing laws like
             the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the normal provisions
             of the Indian Penal Code have been found to be inadequate to
             check these crimes. A special Legislation to check and deter crimes
             against them committed by non-Scheduled Castes and non-
             Scheduled Tribes has, therefore, become necessary.”
B
             9. The long title of the Act is to prevent the commission of offences
      of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the
      Scheduled Tribes, to provide for Special Courts and Exclusive Special
      Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation
      of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or
C     incidental thereto.
             10. The Act was enacted to improve the social economic conditions
      of the vulnerable sections of the society as they have been subjected to
      various offences such as indignities, humiliations and harassment. They
      have been deprived of life and property as well. The object of the Act is
D     thus to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations and
      harassment and commit the offence as defined under Section 3 of the
      Act. The Act is thus intended to punish the acts of the upper caste
      against the vulnerable section of the society for the reason that they
      belong to a particular community.
E           11. It may be stated that the charge-sheet filed is for an offence
      under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section stands substituted by
      Act No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016. The substituted corresponding
      provision is Section 3(1)(r) which reads as under:
             “3(1)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate
F            a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place
             within public view;”
             12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of
      the Act can be classified as “1) intentionally insults or intimidates with
      intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe
G     and 2) in any place within public view”.
             13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate
      the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate
      a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or
      intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless
H     such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled
         HITESH VERMA v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                                601
                    [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-         A
economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act
would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the
Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The
assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either
                                                                                 B
the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to
avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant
or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that
respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the
parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure
established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent            C
No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste.
       14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation
in “any place within public view”. What is to be regarded as “place in
public view” had come up for consideration before this Court in the
judgment reported as Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing               D
Counsel & Ors. 5. The Court had drawn distinction between the
expression “public place” and “in any place within public view”. It was
held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn
outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or
lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place
within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a          E
building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives
or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public
view. The Court held as under:
         “28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first
         informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a         F
         “chamar”) when he stood near the car which was parked at the
         gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place
         within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place
         within public view. It could have been a different matter had the
         alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was          G
         not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside
         the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be
         seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall,
         the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also,
5   (2008) 8 SCC 435                                                             H
602               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A              even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members
               of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it
               would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must,
               therefore, not confuse the expression “place within public view”
               with the expression “public place”. A place can be a private place
               but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place
B
               would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the
               Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha
               or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or
               private bodies.”
             15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were
C     within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant
      that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends)
      at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient
      that the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not
      made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain
D     witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons
      present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to
      have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view
      of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh, it cannot be said to be a
      place within public view as none was said to be present within the four
      walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet.
E
             16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is
      the subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per respondent
      No.2 herself. Due to dispute, appellant and others were not permitting
      respondent No.2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the
      matter is regarding possession of property pending before the Civil Court,
F     any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would
      not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimated
      or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or
      Scheduled Tribe.
            17. In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh v. State of
G     Madhya Pradesh6, this Court held that in a case for applicability of
      Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the deceased belonged to
      Scheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhanced punishment.
      This Court held that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was

H     6   2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104
         HITESH VERMA v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                                603
                    [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged to                 A
Scheduled Caste. The Court held as under:
         “15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so
         as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The
         offence must have been committed against the person on the
         ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and              B
         Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the deceased
         was belonging to “Khangar”-Scheduled Caste is not disputed.
         There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed
         only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled
         Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused under
         Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes            C
         (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable.”
       18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on
the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there
is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present       D
case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation
of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property.
If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under
Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.
       19. This Court in a judgment reported as Dr. Subhash Kashinath            E
Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.7 issued certain directions in
respect of investigations required to be conducted under the Act. In a
review filed by the Union against the said judgment, this Court in a
judgment reported as Union of India v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.8
reviewed the directions issued by this Court and held that if there is a         F
false and unsubstantiated FIR, the proceedings under Section 482 of the
Code can be invoked. The Court held as under:
         “52. There is no presumption that the members of the Scheduled
         Castes and Scheduled Tribes may misuse the provisions of law as
         a class and it is not resorted to by the members of the upper           G
         castes or the members of the elite class. For lodging a false report,
         it cannot be said that the caste of a person is the cause. It is due
         to the human failing and not due to the caste factor. Caste is not
7   (2018) 6 SCC 454
8   (2020) 4 SCC 761                                                             H
604                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A              attributable to such an act. On the other hand, members of the
               Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes due to backwardness
               hardly muster the courage to lodge even a first information report,
               much less, a false one. In case it is found to be false/
               unsubstantiated, it may be due to the faulty investigation or for
               other various reasons including human failings irrespective of caste
B
               factor. There may be certain cases which may be false that can
               be a ground for interference by the Court, but the law cannot be
               changed due to such misuse. In such a situation, it can be taken
               care of in proceeding under Section 482 CrPC.”
             20. Later, while examining the constitutionality of the provisions
C     of the Amending Act (Central Act No. 27 of 2018), this Court in a
      judgment reported as Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors.9
      held that proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code. It
      was held as under:
               “12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under
D              Section 482 CrPC for quashing the cases to prevent misuse of
               provisions on settled parameters, as already observed while deciding
               the review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no argument
               to the contrary has been raised.”
             21. In Gerige Pentaiah, one of the arguments raised was non-
E     disclosure of the caste of the accused but the facts were almost similar
      as there was civil dispute between parties pending and the allegation
      was that the accused has called abuses in the name of the caste of the
      victim. The High Court herein has misread the judgment of this Court in
      Ashabai Machindra Adhagale as it was not a case about the caste of
F     the victim but the fact that the accused was belonging to upper caste
      was not mentioned in the FIR. The High Court of Bombay had quashed
      the proceedings for the reason that the caste of the accused was not
      mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of
      the Act is not made out. In an appeal against the decision of the Bombay
      High Court, this Court held that this will be the matter of investigation as
G     to whether the accused either belongs to or does not belong to Scheduled
      Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the High Court erred in law to
      dismiss the quashing petition relying upon later larger Bench judgment.



H
      9   (2020) 4 SCC 727
         HITESH VERMA v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                                  605
                    [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

       22. The appellant had sought quashing of the charge-sheet on the            A
ground that the allegation does not make out an offence under the Act
against the appellant merely because respondent No. 2 was a Scheduled
Caste since the property dispute was not on account of the fact that
respondent No. 2 was a Scheduled Caste. The property disputes between
a vulnerable section of the society and a person of upper caste will not
                                                                                   B
disclose any offence under the Act unless, the allegations are on account
of the victim being a Scheduled Caste.Still further, the finding that the
appellant was aware of the caste of the informant is wholly
inconsequential as the knowledge does not bar, any person to protect his
rights by way of a procedure established by law.
       23. This Court in a judgment reported as Ishwar Pratap Singh                C
& Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.10 held that there is no prohibition
under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in part. In a petition filed
under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court is required to examine as
to whether its intervention is required for prevention of abuse of process
of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court held as               D
under:
          “9. Having regard to the settled legal position on external
          interference in investigation and the specific facts of this case,
          we are of the view that the High Court ought to have exercised
          its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice.   E
          There is no prohibition under law for quashing a charge-sheet in
          part. A person may be accused of several offences under different
          penal statutes, as in the instant case. He could be aggrieved of
          prosecution only on a particular charge or charges, on any ground
          available to him in law. Under Section 482, all that the High Court
          is required to examine is whether its intervention is required for       F
          implementing orders under the Criminal Procedure Code or for
          prevention of abuse of process, or otherwise to secure the ends
          of justice. A charge-sheet filed at the dictate of somebody other
          than the police would amount to abuse of the process of law and
          hence the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent powers         G
          under Section 482 to the extent of the abuse. There is no
          requirement that the charge-sheet has to be quashed as a whole
          and not in part. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The

10   (2018) 13 SCC 612                                                             H
606                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A               supplementary report filed by the police, at the direction of the
                Commission, is quashed.”
            24. In view of the above facts, we find that the charges against
      the appellant under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are not made out.
      Consequently, the charge-sheet to that extent is quashed. The appeal is
B     disposed of in the above terms.
             25. The FIR in respect of other offences will be tried by the
      competent Court in accordance with law along with the criminal case 11,
      though separately initiated, for the reason that it relates to interparty
      dispute and is in respect of same subject matter of property, despite of
C     the fact that two different dates of the incident have been provided by
      the parties.


      Kalpana K. Tripathy                                        Appeal disposed of.

D




E




F




G




H     11   FIR No. 174 of 2019