JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') has been moved by the accused petitioner thereby invoking the inherent powers of the Court with a request to quash FIR No. 377/96 registered at and pending investigation with the Police Station, Udaimandir, Jodhpur. 2. Briefly, for the purpose of disposal of this petition, the allegations as are made in the impugned FIR lodged by the informant Dhurendra Meghwal on 1.10.1996 at 5.10 p.m. with the Officer in charge, Police Station, Pratapnagar since the alleged incident took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Police Station, Udaimandir, Jodhpur, the same having been forwarded to the Officer in charge, Udaimandir, Jodhpur whereat the said FIR was registered, are that the informant is real brother of Mahendra Meghwal. The informant Dhurendra was student of B. Pharma (Second Year) at the Lachu College, Jodhpur. Mahendra Meghwal was student of L.L.B First Year of the Jodhpur University. This incident is alleged to have taken place on the night intervening 27/28.9.1996 between 2200 hours to 0215 hours near the Kamla Nehru (Girls) College, Jodhpur whereat the famous Martyrs' Memorial is situated. Mahendra Meghwal was contesting as a candidate for the post of Joint General Secretary of the Students' Union (Apex Body) of the J.N.V. University, Jodhpur, Dhurendra was actively engaged in canvassing for his brother along with his friends Anil Seni, Avinash Arora, Anil Phillip and Anurag Mathur etc. On 27.9.1996 at about 10 p.m. Dhurendra along with his aforesaid friends was proceeding in his jeep No. RNM 7088 on the link road connecting Ratanada Road to Circuit House Road and on their reaching near the Bal Niketan School situated adjacent to the K.N. (Girls) College, two persons riding a motor-cycle over-took the jeep and stopped the same. They dragged out Dhurendra and they started abusing and insulting him. They told Dhurendra that he should accompany them to Babu Singh Rathore who was then. sitting President of the Students' Union J.N.V. University, Jodhpur but Dhurendra refused to accompany them. He was threatened, thrashed and lifted and, lastly, was forcibly seated on the.motor-cycle between the two motor cyclists and he was kidnapped and taken to a lonely place situated ahead of K.N. (Girls) College, Jodhpur towards the over-bridge. sitting President of the Students' Union J.N.V. University, Jodhpur but Dhurendra refused to accompany them. He was threatened, thrashed and lifted and, lastly, was forcibly seated on the.motor-cycle between the two motor cyclists and he was kidnapped and taken to a lonely place situated ahead of K.N. (Girls) College, Jodhpur towards the over-bridge. He was detained there and was given a thrashing, his both hands were tied and he was made to run from one place to another. Dhurendra was threatened that since his brother (Mahendra Meghwal) was contesting election of the said post on the symbol of A.B.V.P. and, therefore, he was being taught a lesson therefor. He was further warned that in case his brother did not contest on the symbol of and as a candidate of N.S.U.I. for the Union post, his brother would face danger to his life. Besides, he was threatened that he would not henceforth go for canvassing in favour of his brother. It was further alleged that before being kidnapped from the jeep, as above, after taking him to a little distance in the corner near the Martyrs' Circle near the campus of Bal Niketan School, he was forced, thrashed and intimidated to bend and adapt a shape of a cock by bending to the extreme low and catching his both ears with fingers of both hands taking the same from the underneath bending joints of both the knees. Thus he was badly thrashed, intimidated, threatened, humiliated and, lastly being abused and insulted, he was left at about 2 a.m. in the night near the jeep whereat companions of Dhurendra were waiting for him. Since both the accused-persons committing aforesaid offences were previously not known to Dhurendra and his associates, it was stated that they could identify both the persons. Besides, identification marks of the vehicles on which the accused persons were riding were also given in the report. Since Dhurendra was busy in the forth-coming elections, this report was lodged on 1.10.1996, as above. 3. Besides, identification marks of the vehicles on which the accused persons were riding were also given in the report. Since Dhurendra was busy in the forth-coming elections, this report was lodged on 1.10.1996, as above. 3. On this report, Officer in-charge of the Police Station, Udaimandir, Jodhpur, on the same day at 6.15 p.m. registered the said FIR No. 377/96 for commission of offences under sections 341, 342, 365, 323 & 504/34 IPC and under section 3(1)(vii), (x) & (xi) of the Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act of 1989) and, subsequently, the investigation was taken up by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (City), Jodhpur. During the course of investigation, after examination of the informant Dhurendra and the said witnesses, it was found that the present petitioner was one of the two accused persons who committed the alleged offences and, as a result, apprehending his arrest the petitioner moved application for anticipatory bail under section 438, Cr.P.C. and, accordingly, during the pendency of the same, this petition has been simultaneously moved with a request to set aside and quash the FIR and resultant investigation. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned P.P. for the State and also the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the impugned FIR as well as resultant material collected as a result of investigation conducted so far. 5. The learned counsel submitted that no offence as described under any of the clauses of sub-sec. (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1989 is borne out of the impugned FIR nor any allegation is borne /substantiated as a result of material collected during the course of investigation. Accordingly, his further submission is that no offence either u/Cl. (vii) or Cl. (x) or Cl. (xi), as mentioned in the FIR and, presently, under investigation is made out. On the contrary, in case the informant was abused and insulted, the offence punishable under section 504, IPC alone could be held to have been made out and nothing more. Accordingly, his further submission is that no offence either u/Cl. (vii) or Cl. (x) or Cl. (xi), as mentioned in the FIR and, presently, under investigation is made out. On the contrary, in case the informant was abused and insulted, the offence punishable under section 504, IPC alone could be held to have been made out and nothing more. Besides, as regards merits of the case, it has been submitted that, as per the FIR and the statements of the witnesses including the informant himself, both the said persons who are alleged to have committed the said offences; were previously not known to them and, as a result, in absence of any previous identification held during the course of investigation, the present petitioner is not, at any cost, found to be one of the two persons alleged to have been involved in commission of the offences. The petitioner is, presently, practising as a lawyer (trainee) with his senior at Sojat City Courts and that he was at Sojat on the date of the occurrence and, therefore, at the same time, the petitioner could not have been present at Jodhpur and so much-less at the place of the alleged occurrence. Besides, the petitioner having finished his studies, had nothing to do with the elections of the students' Union and, therefore, it is submitted that neither the alleged non bailable offences for which specially in view of the embargo of Section 18 of the Act of 1989, not being entitled to anticipatory bail, the accused petitioner is being falsely involved in the case whereas, as is his further submission, the accused petitioner had had no connection with the alleged incident and, therefore, since the police is bent upon arresting the accused petitioner in a false case and it is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court and in case, the accused petitioner, in the aforesaid circumstances, is arrested, it would result in great miscarriage of justice. 6. However, while producing investigation record, the learned P.P. has countered all these submissions made on behalf of the accused Petitioner. 6. However, while producing investigation record, the learned P.P. has countered all these submissions made on behalf of the accused Petitioner. It is submitted that the accused petitioner has taken a false plea of alibi thereby showing that he was present at Sojat City on the fateful day whereas this incident took place at about 10 p.m. on the night of 27.9.1996 and onwards and, assuming that the petitioner was present at Sojat Courts in the day, it was not impossible for the accused petitioner to have travelled from Sojat to Jodhpur and to have committed this incident. Besides, there is absolutely no judicial record thereby showing/recording presence of the accused petitioner while participating in or appearing on behalf of any of the litigating parties in any of the Courts situated at Sojat City. Therefore, by making entries, if any, in his own diary, this sort of admission in one's own favour, which could be made at any time, does not help the accused-petitioner. Besides, the identity of the accused-petitioner has been very well established during the course of the examination of the witnesses and, as a result, since the offences as are described u /Cis. (iii), (vii) & (x) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1989, besides, other offences punishable under the Penal Code, which are not subject matter of challenge at present, are prima facie made out from the allegations of the FIR and subsequent statements of the witnesses. As a result, the present petition is wholly misconceived and lacks complete merit deserving its dismissal outright. 7. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code with a request that the impugned FIR and so also consequential investigation may be quashed. For the purpose of quashing the FIR it becomes necessary to consider whether the allegations in the FIR primir facie make out an offence or not. It is not necessary to scrutinise allegations for the purpose of deciding whether such allegations are likely to be upheld in the trial. Any action by way of quashing the FIR is an action to be taken at the threshold before evidences are led in support of the FIR for quashing the FIR by way of action at the threshold, it is, therefore, necessary to consider whether on the facts of the allegations, a criminal offence is constituted or not. Any action by way of quashing the FIR is an action to be taken at the threshold before evidences are led in support of the FIR for quashing the FIR by way of action at the threshold, it is, therefore, necessary to consider whether on the facts of the allegations, a criminal offence is constituted or not. A reference can very conveniently and respect-fully be made to the decision rendered in Central Bureau of Investigation , SPE, SIU(X), New Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 2452 . 8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 (Suppl) (1) 335 while laying down principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power u/Art. 226 of the Constitution or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code, giving following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, further observed that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myiad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised : (1) Where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the FIR and other material, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156(1) of the Code except under the order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and made out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Code. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and /or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 9. Now reverting to the merits of the petition, needless to mention that offences punishable under sections 341, 342, 365, 323 & 504/34 IPC are all bailable and, presently, alleged commission of offences falling under these sections of the Penal Code are not subject matter of challenge. However, since offences covered by any of the clauses of sub-sec. (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1989 are all cognizable and, at the same time, non bailable and there being an embargo of non application of the provisions of anticipatory bail as provided under section 438 of the Code, under section 18 of the Act of 1989, it has been, as submitted hereinbefore, emphasised on behalf of the petitioner that no such offence is made out of the FIR being impugned or as a result of subsequent investigation conducted so far. With a view to appreciate and dispose of this objection it is worthwhile to quote, ad verbatim, the Cls. (iii), (vii), (x) and (xi) of sub,sec. (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1989:- (i) ... ... ... ... ... (ii) ......................... With a view to appreciate and dispose of this objection it is worthwhile to quote, ad verbatim, the Cls. (iii), (vii), (x) and (xi) of sub,sec. (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1989:- (i) ... ... ... ... ... (ii) ......................... (iii) forcibly removes clothes from the person of a member of a Schedule Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or parades him naked or with painted face or body or commits any similar act which is derogatory to human dignity; (iv) ...................... (v) ....................... (vi) ....................... (vii) forces or intimidates a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe not to vote or to vote to a particular candidate or to vote in a manner other than that provided by law; (viii) ............................ (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; (xi) assault or uses forces to any woman belonging to a Schedule Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty; (xii) ...................... 10. At the out set, as far as application of Cl. (xi), since there is no woman much less belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, there does not arise any question of either assaulting or using any force with an intent to dishonour or outrage modesty of any woman and, therefore, Cl. (xi) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 3 has been falsely mentioned either because of ignorance of the law or misapplication of the law and the same falls out of consideration. 11. As regards allegations falling in the purview of provisions of Cls. (vii) & (x), quoted above, as the same, as also submitted by the learned P.P. on behalf of the State, the provisions of Cl. (iii) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1989 are also attracted which fell for consideration and adjudication. Clause (iii) inter alia mentions that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, as is the case with the present petitioner who is Charan by caste, commits any act similar to those mentioned in this clause, is derogatory to human dignity, the same is punishable under sub-sec. (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1989. (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1989. Similarly, in case such a person forces or intimidates any member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as is the case with the present petition, either not to vote or to vote to a particular candidate or to vote in the manner that provided other than that provided by law, he also made liable for penalty as provided in the manner indicated hereinbefore. Lastly, Cl. (x) prescribes that such a person, not being member of the said castes covered by this Act, intentionally insults or intimidates with an intent to humiliate a member of such caste, as is the case with the informant Dhurendra, presently, in any place within the public view, he is stated to have committed offence punishable under this Section. 12. As regards the allegations of the impugned FIR, it cannot be disputed that the accused petitioner being by caste Charan, is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. On the contrary, Dhurendra being Meghwal by caste, is a member of the Scheduled Caste. This being the undisputed position, as regards contesting of elections by the brother of informant Mahendra Meghwal, as above, is not disputed. Besides, the alleged date, time and place as are reported in the impugned FIR also are not subject matter of challenge under the petition. 13. The petitioner has not alleged or imputed any motive for the informant to have, if so assumed, falsely involved.in this case in case he was not involved in the commission of the alleged offences. Therefore, apparently the informant had had no grudge or an axe to grind against the accused-petitioner by implicating him falsely in this case. 14. As regards the challenge from the petitioner's side on the merits of the case, the delay alleged to have been made in lodging of the FIR and besides the plea of alibi, are not necessary to be considered for the disposal of this petition. As contended by the learned P.P., it was not impossible for the petitioner to have travelled from Sojat City to Jodhpur, in case he was,,present at Sojat City on 27.9.1996 and, at any rate, presently, there are no grounds to believe that he was not present at the place of occurrence as alleged in the FIR itself. As contended by the learned P.P., it was not impossible for the petitioner to have travelled from Sojat City to Jodhpur, in case he was,,present at Sojat City on 27.9.1996 and, at any rate, presently, there are no grounds to believe that he was not present at the place of occurrence as alleged in the FIR itself. Similarly, Dhurendra has given a plausible explanation for the delay having been made in lodging of the impugned FIR which does not ex fade appear to be false or afterthought one. 15. Accordingly, reverting to the merits of the allegations and the material available in support thereof, the petitioner was canvassing for his brother Mahendra Meghwal, besides, Mahendra Meghwal was a candidate of A.B.V.P. much to dislinking of the accused-petitioner and Babu Singh was then sitting President of the Apex Body of the Students' Union of the J.N.V. University, Jodhpur. As a result, to disable and desist from canvassing for his brother (candidate), the accused-petitioner was accosted by two motor-cyclists and he was, lastly, stopped in front of the Bal Nikentan School near K.N. (Girls) College whereat he was abused, threatened and intimidated and was dragged out of the jeep and was abused and insulted and, lastly, was taken ahead of the said place and, near the Martyrs' Circle, he was intimidated and threatened to adapt a shape of a cock, as described above and, so hewas insulted, intimidated and meted out a treatment quite derogatory to human dignity as he was a member of the Scheduled Caste and that too in a public place which was a thoroughfare and the traffic passes therefrom through out the day and night, though the density may be comparatively much less in the night. In this view of the fact, the place whereat he was dragged out of the vehicle, abuses were hurled on him and he was forcibly lifted and thereafter forced to adapt a shape of cock and a torturous and humiliating act usually resorted to by feudal elements in old times on the members of the Scheduled Caste, Schedule Tribes and the section of socially backward and neglected persons. Besides, he was lifted forcibly on,the motorcycle and, lastly, near the Raikabag Over-bridge, he was thrashed, beaten and intimidated thereby warning him against supporting and canvassing for his brother much to the disliking of the accused petitioner and his associates. Besides, he was lifted forcibly on,the motorcycle and, lastly, near the Raikabag Over-bridge, he was thrashed, beaten and intimidated thereby warning him against supporting and canvassing for his brother much to the disliking of the accused petitioner and his associates. His hands were tied and he was forced to roam from one place to another while being illegally confined for about a period of four hours. As a result, all these atrocities were committed on the informant since he was a member of the Scheduled Caste and, as such, while opting not to contest election, as a member of A.B.V.P. declining to contest as a candidate of the N.S.U.I. for the post of Joint General Secretary, Students' Union, J.N.V. University, Jodhpur, The accused and his associates knew very well that the informant was member of the Scheduled Caste. He was canvassing for his younger brother and finding that, being elder brother of Mahendra Meghwal, the informant in a better position to dissuade Mahendra Meghwal from contesting as a candidate of A.B.V.P. for the said post, the informant was insulted and intimidated and, consequently, humiliated by bestowing most inhumane and undignified treatment to him. Accordingly, they subjected him to such acts which are clearly covered by the Cls. (iii) & (x). There is no doubt that the places where at the alleged offences were committed were public places being thoroughfares and the places being within public view. Besides, the informant was subjected to insulting, humiliating, intimidating and, lastly, indignified acts by the accused-petitioner and his associates and, at the same time, a heavy vehicular traffic usually passes from the place of occurrence and, therefore, since it is clearly alleged in the FIR by the informant that he was so threatened, intimidated, pulled out of the vehicle and was badly abused and insulted in a public place within the public view and was so subsequently subjected to the alleged acts, as above and, same allegations are also substantiated by the statements of Ashok Seni, Avinash Arora, Anil Phillip and Anurag Mathur, besides, Mahendra Meghwal himself, to whom, after returning home, the informant narrated this incident. Besides, Anurag and Mahendra have clearly stated in their statements that the accused- petitioner also called the informant by uttering the words "Dhedh Neech", thereby intentionally insulting and humiliating the informant, being a member of the Scheduled Caste, in a public place within the public view as also supported by the aforesaid witnesses. In this view of the fact, presently, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court cannot be justified to embark upon scanning and sifting of the aforesaid statements of the witnesses besides the allegations of the FIR and, since ex facie when allegations of the FIR and consequential investigation conducted so far as borne out of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses including the informant himself and so also the case diary, it is clearly prima facit borne out that the accused-petitioner was one of those two persons who had committed the alleged offences, presently, under investigation and, accordingly, in this view of the fact, when there are no allegations of any malice, mala fide or there being no ulterior motive for the informant to have implicated and involved the petitioner falsely in this case, presently, there cannot be any justification to quash FIR and resultant investigation holding the same to be groundless. 16. Accordingly, when allegations of the FIR when taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety prima facie constituting commission of offences as discussed hereinbefore make out a case against the accused-petitioner and the other supporting material, collected during the course of investigation, further lends corroboration to the allegations of the FIR constituting cognizable offences falling prima facie u /Cls.(vii) (x) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1989, there cannot be any valid justification for still quashing of the FIR and the resultant investigation conducted so far. 17. (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1989, there cannot be any valid justification for still quashing of the FIR and the resultant investigation conducted so far. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the case of Bhaian Lal (supra) gave a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be L exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extra-ordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice. 18. Besides, as discussed hereinbefore, the allegations contained in the FIR constitute offences under section 3(1) of the said Act of 1989. It is the duty of the Court to examine and judicially scrutinise whether on its face value, the FIR and the material available in the case diary do constitute an offence under the said Act. The correctness of the allegations is not required to be gone into and the only thing required to be seen is whether the allegations made in the FIR and the material available in the case diary taking to be true, on its face value, do constitute an offence under the said Act or not. Presently, when after scrutiny, the Court finds that the FIR and the material available in the case diary, on its face value, do constitute offences, as mentioned above, the jurisdiction of this Court, if the case on merits is made out, is taken away and, consequently, by way of invocation of its inherent powers, there cannot be any justification to quash the impugned FIR and consequential investigation as, presently sought for by the petitioner. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, from which every angle it is viewed, there is no merit in the petition and, accordingly, it warrants dismissal. 20. Therefore, on the basis of the discussion made hereinbefore, this petition is hereby dismissed.Petition rejected. *******