JUDGMENT : 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed for quashing of FIR being M.Case No.1 of 2011 registered with Kalol City Police Station for offences under Sections 166, 167, 466, 323, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)((iv) (v), (ix) and (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The said FIR is registered on 26.04.2011 in connection with an incident which allegedly took place in December 2010 and the FIR is registered against petitioner No.1, who is Chief Officer of Kalol Nagarpalika and two others, who are also employees of the Nagarpalika. 1.1 In the FIR, it is alleged that the complainant (respondent No.1) belongs to ‘vankar’ community. His father late Shri Natthubhai Prajapati was tenant in open land of one Navjeevan Mills Ltd. at Kalol and was enjoying possession of the land since 70 years. It is alleged that till March 2009, the complainant has paid municipal taxes, but the accused persons, with an intention to usurp the land, have interpolated with relevant documents of the property and their purpose for doing so is to construct a shopping centre on that land. It is alleged that for the year 2009-10, Nagarpalika refused to issue tax bill and therefore, notice was issued through the Advocate for issuing the tax bill and when the complainant personally visited office of the Nagarpalika somewhere in December 2010, the incident as alleged in the FIR took place. For that incident, he had given a written complaint to the concerned Police Station and also to the DSP, Gandhinagar and as no action was taken a criminal complaint was filed before the concerned Court and as per the order, M.Case came to be registered. 1.2 In the complaint, it is alleged that again on 21.04.2011 in connection with the same issue, the complainant had approached office of the Nagarpalika along with two persons, viz. Maheshbhai Visabhai and Laxmanbhai Manabhai and there, the complainant was offered two shops in the shopping centre if he is ready to compromise, but as the accused persons were resorting to illegality, the complainant did not support their cause, because of which petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were infuriated and attacked complainant and used abusive words. Maheshbhai Visabhai and Laxmanbhai Manabhai and there, the complainant was offered two shops in the shopping centre if he is ready to compromise, but as the accused persons were resorting to illegality, the complainant did not support their cause, because of which petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were infuriated and attacked complainant and used abusive words. He was also given kick blows by accused Nos.2 and 3 and in view of this incident, FIR came to be registered. 2. Heard Mr.Amin, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr.Prajapati, learned Advocate for respondent No.1–complainant and learned APP Ms.Monali Bhatt for respondent No.2 – State. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the entire story as is narrated in the FIR is unbelievable. Though the alleged incident is of December 2010, still, the complainant has approached the authorities at belated stage. In fact, no such incident has occurred. Whatever entries are made in the record or on the basis of either inspection or documents, are part of the record and if any grievance is there for the complainant against recording of the entries, option is available to him. However, instead of resorting to such option available in law, the complainant has resorted to filing this frivolous complaint so that he can pressurize the petitioners, who are officials of Nagarpalika, to accede to his demands. 4. It is submitted that non-issuance of tax bill is only on account of GR passed by the Government for issuing tax bill only qua properties constructed on the land and when spot inspection carried out by petitioner Nos.2 and 3 indicated open land at the particular place, the same was exactly recorded in the record of Nagarpalika. This recording cannot be considered to be creating false evidence or interpolation with the evidence. 4.1 In connection with the allegations of offences under the Atrocities Act, it is submitted that no such incident has taken place. Invocation of the Atrocities Act is for obvious reasons. The complainant, who is habitual in filing complaint under the Atrocities Act and filing RTI applications every now and then, is well conversant with law and would not wait for long to register an FIR as he has done in the instant case. Invocation of the Atrocities Act is for obvious reasons. The complainant, who is habitual in filing complaint under the Atrocities Act and filing RTI applications every now and then, is well conversant with law and would not wait for long to register an FIR as he has done in the instant case. It is further submitted that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 themselves belong to scheduled caste, for which certificates are produced at Annexure-I and therefore, the provisions of the Atrocities Act would not be attracted and therefore, the complaint is required to be quashed. 5. As against this, learned Advocate for respondent No.1 – complainant submitted that though since long on plot No.110, hut was in existence, still with an oblique motive, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have recorded it to be an open land and this is purposefully done so that the land in question can be shown as open land and thereafter can be used by Nagarpalika for constructing complex at the behest of influential persons. He substantiated his claim by submitting that till 2008, tax bills were issued to the complainant and taxes were also paid by him. There was no reason for the authorities in not issuing the tax bill for the subsequent period and when the complainant questioned the act of the authorities, the incident as alleged in the complaint has taken place. He submitted that his client is pursuing his rights in civil litigation, which is still pending. 6. Learned APP has drawn attention of this Court to the reports submitted by DY.SP, Kalol addressed to the office of the Public Prosecutor at Gujarat High Court. From the report, it is submitted that the investigation has revealed that no evidence is available on record to substantiate offences which are alleged in the FIR. In the report, it is indicated that in connection with the issue of the land, proceedings are continuing in the office of the Collector as well as in Civil Court and therefore, insofar as the allegations of tampering with the documents is concerned, the same could not be substantiated. It is also indicated in the report that on account of lack of evidence in support of the allegations and that at the root of it, there is a civil matter, nothing more is required to be done at the hands of the investigating agency. 7. It is also indicated in the report that on account of lack of evidence in support of the allegations and that at the root of it, there is a civil matter, nothing more is required to be done at the hands of the investigating agency. 7. Considering the submissions made by the rival parties, it is evident that the petitioners before this Court are employees of Nagarpalika and are bound to follow rules and regulations for the purpose of carrying out their duty. The non-issuance of tax bill, for which the complainant approached office of the Nagarpalika, is attributed to GR, which permits issuance of tax bill only for the constructed property. Any dispute with regard to existence of construction or the open land on the land in question would definitely be a subject matter of an appropriate forum under the municipal laws. Insofar as the incident is concerned, this Court finds that the allegations made in the FIR appear to be quite unnatural and in fact, are directed with an oblique motive to involve the petitioners in frivolous prosecution to get benefit before the revenue authority under the handing sword of prosecution. 8. So far as the prosecution under the Atrocities Act is concerned, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 indisputably belong to scheduled caste and hence, prosecution qua them should fail. 9. A perusal of the investigation record and the allegations made in the FIR would not indicate that the allegations made, insofar as utterance of abusive words diminishing the complainant regarding his caste, are not uttered in public view, which is essential requirement to attract the provisions of the Atrocities Act. There is no medical evidence available on record to indicate use of force or giving kick blows to the complainant. Over and above this, the investigation papers would indicate that the two witnesses, viz. Maheshbhai and Laxmanbhai mentioned by the complainant have not stood their ground as one offered by them in the statement recorded on 27.04.2011 and a story quite contrary to the same is recorded in subsequent statement recorded on 28.05.2011. Therefore, in view of this, the Court is of the opinion that the prosecution cannot sustain on such lame witnesses. 10. In view of the aforesaid, more particularly in view of the report of the Investigating Agency in connection with the alleged offence, FIR deserves to be quashed. Therefore, in view of this, the Court is of the opinion that the prosecution cannot sustain on such lame witnesses. 10. In view of the aforesaid, more particularly in view of the report of the Investigating Agency in connection with the alleged offence, FIR deserves to be quashed. This Court is also of the opinion that the petitioners being Government servants, acting in conformity with their duty, cannot be permitted to face prosecution of such frivolous complaint. 11. In view of the aforesaid, FIR being M.Case No.1 of 2011 registered with Kalol City Police Station is hereby quashed. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed.