JUDGMENT : 1. The application in hand is moved under section 482 of Criminal procedure code, 1973 by learned counsel Sri Dev Mani Mishra on behalf of applicant accused involved in case crime no. 80/2019 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3(1)(D) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act (which shall hereinafter be addressed as SC/ST Act), Police Station -Aspur Deosara, District Pratapgarh. The applicant seeks following reliefs, praying to:- "That under the facts and circumstances of the case, it is very respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the impugned Charge sheet dated 18.07.2019, U/S-323,504,506, I.P.C, and 3(1)(D) S.c & S.t Act. Police Station-Aspur Deosara, District-Pratapgarh, filed in F.I.R No. 0080/2019, U/S-323,504,506, I.P.C, and 3(1)(D) S.c & S.t Act. Police Station- Aspur Deosara, District- Pratapgarh, contained and annexed as annexure no. 2 to this petition. Further it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 319/2019 state of U.P. versus Surendra Tiwari and Another, pending before special judge S.c & S.t Act. Pratapgarh, In the interest of justice." 2. The grounds upon which the relief to quash the charge-sheet is sought, as pleaded in the application are- (i) applicants have no criminal history. (ii) the allegations labelled against the applicants in the present case are nothing but an attempt to save himself from own wrong by the informant. 3. Learned A.G.A concentrating over the ground that just because the applicant has no criminal history, the FIR, charge sheet as well as criminal proceeding initiated against him do not become shaky and suspicious in itself. He further argued that each and every case is to be looked into with respect to the particular allegations made therein and so far as the fact of accused having no criminal history is concerned, it may be a relevant fact to be stated as evidence in defence, however it is immaterial for considering whether or not the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. The argument of the learned A.G.A is supported with the interpretation of word 'fact' as interpreted under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, the 'interpretation clause', which is quoted hereunder provide as following:- “Fact”. The argument of the learned A.G.A is supported with the interpretation of word 'fact' as interpreted under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, the 'interpretation clause', which is quoted hereunder provide as following:- “Fact”. —“Fact” means and includes— (1) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses; (2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious. Illustrations (a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact. (b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact. (c) That a man said certain words, is a fact. (d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact. (e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact." 4. In view of the above, the reputation of the applicant accused, as claimed by him of having no criminal antecedent is of no avail at this stage where evidence is not being appreciated for the purpose of evaluating the allegations made against him in the FIR and the charge-sheet. 5. The other ground on the basis of which the relief of quashing the charge-sheet and the entire proceeding is sought raises an issue "whether the allegations labelled against the applicants in present case, are nothing but an attempt by the informant to save himself from his own wrong" is to be examined carefully so as to prevent abuse of process, if any, is being done. 6. In R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 516 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "9(2). For the said purpose, the court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence". 7. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the state opposite parties. Perused the materials available on record. 8. For the said purpose, the court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence". 7. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the state opposite parties. Perused the materials available on record. 8. Before entering into merit of the present application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (shall hereinafter be read as Cr.P.C. only) it would be relevant to keep in mind, the scope and ambit of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and circumstances under which the extra ordinary power of the court inherent therein as provisioned in the said section of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised. It is explained in a plethora of judgments of the Honorable Apex Court, such as in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007)12 SCC 1 , is quoted hereunder:- "23. This court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice" 9. In the case of Parbatbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 , again the Hon'ble Supreme Court has had an occasion to consider whether the High Court can quash the FIR/complaint/criminal proceedings, in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. held as under:- "15. Considering a catena of decisions of this Court on the point, this Court summarized the following propositions: “(1) Section 482 CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which is inherent in the High Court. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which is inherent in the High Court. (2) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non compoundable. (3) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. (4) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. (5) the decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulate. (6) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. (7) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. (7) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. (8) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. (9) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; (10) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in Propositions (8) and (9) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic wellbeing of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab reported in (1960 CriLJ 1239) summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 11. In State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has illustrated several circumstances wherein the extraordinary power under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code may be exercised for the purpose of preventing an abuse of process or to secure the ends of Justice or to enforce the order of the court. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has illustrated several circumstances wherein the extraordinary power under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code may be exercised for the purpose of preventing an abuse of process or to secure the ends of Justice or to enforce the order of the court. Illustrations quoted hereunder are treated as guidelines for the purpose of exercising of powers under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code:- "102.(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report 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 First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an 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 make 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; (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." 12. In view of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, before going into discussion, it would be necessary here to have a look upon the facts of the case in hand. Briefly stating, the F.I.R, as lodged by opposite party no.2 in the present application, bearing Crime No.80/2019 registered at Police Station -Aspur Deosara, District Pratapgarh under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(D) SC/ST Act (as amended on 18.6.2019) the present applicant (the accused in aforesaid case crime) along with his companions ran cows into the field in the night of 18.6.2019 at about 8:00 p.m. The cattles so pushed in the field began to graze the crops grown in the field. When the informant tried to stop this the applicant accused began to abuse in filthy language threatening to kill, attacked on him with lathi and danda. When the informant made hue and cry, for his rescue, the wife of informant rushed up to save him then the applicant accused assaulted her also with lathi and danda. The informant (opposite party no.2) informed the concerned police station but instead of registering his FIR he was scolded and driven away. The informant and his wife were not heard by police. 13. On the other hand with regard to the same incident the F.I.R. bearing No.76/2019 has been filed by the accused applicant on 19.6.2019, in the same Police Station under Sections 427, 452, 506, 504, 323 I.P.C. with the similar allegations, alleging that the incident occurred on 18.6.2019 at about 8:00 p.m in night wherein they were assaulted in a scuffle with the opposite party no.2 of the present case. 14. In the aforesaid reference, it has been submitted on behalf of the informant of Case Crime No.80/2019 that the accused applicant belong to the upper caste of the society and the opposite party no.2, (informant) belongs to scheduled case, due to this fact the Informant and his wife were not heard by the Police and their FIR was not registered. However, both the parties to the incident have their counter version to each other. 15. However, both the parties to the incident have their counter version to each other. 15. On hearing the parties, the issues arising in this application are as following:- (i) As to which version is true out of the two counter versions with regard to the same incident in two FIR's. (ii) whether the investigating officer without any application of mind, over the materials collected by him mechanically forwarded the charge sheet to the court concerned. (iii) whether the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act has applied its mind while taking cognizance of the offences on the basis of material collected and placed by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet. 16. So far as the happening of incident with regard to which allegations are made in the FIR is concerned, the same is almost admitted and will be treated as prima facie true for the reason that the applicant accused have also lodged an FIR for the same incident. 17. The role of accused applicant in an admitted incident is to be tested on the basis of evidences which is matter of trial and any defence taken by accused at this stage cannot be entertained. 18. If an incident, of scuffling and beating each other, occurs in between two groups of people and both of them have complained of the incident to the police, putting their own versions, though incriminating each other and exculpating themselves, at least the occurrence of incident is admittedly established. In such a circumstance the counter versions of the parties to the same incident form cross cases. There is no express provision in Criminal Procedure Code for their investigation or trial separately. Therefore, the investigating officer has a duty to carefully collect the evidence with regard to the role of accused in such cases as to which one of them is aggressor in causing the incident or in defence, and also their individual role in the offence. Therefore the allegations in the F.I.R. if fulfill the ingredients of the offence, the FIR is to be treated as deserving for investigation. After collecting the prima facie evidence, the investigating officer has to place them on record along with the name and details of witnesses and documentary evidence. Therefore the allegations in the F.I.R. if fulfill the ingredients of the offence, the FIR is to be treated as deserving for investigation. After collecting the prima facie evidence, the investigating officer has to place them on record along with the name and details of witnesses and documentary evidence. In the light of the above discussion it would be necessary to go through the relevant Section of I.P.C. namely Sections 323, 504 and 506 as well as those under the SC/ST Act. 19. In view of the above, it would be necessary to examine whether the allegations made in the FIR are fulfilling the ingredients of the offences with which the accused are slapped. 20. Section 323 IPC runs as under:- S.323. Punishment for Voluntarily causing Hurt-Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section 319 of the I.P.C. defines "Hurt", whoever causes bodily pain disease or injury to any person is said to cause hurt. Section 323 of the I.P.C. is with regard to the punishment to a person who does any act with the intention thereby, causing hurt to any person, with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, shall be punishable with the imprisonment for one year or fine of Rs.1,000/-or both as such the FIR allegations no doubt fulfill the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 323 21. Section 504 IPC runs as under :- S.504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. —Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Section 504 of the I.P.C. makes the offence of causing insult intentionally with intent to provoke breach of the peace. Section 504 of the I.P.C. makes the offence of causing insult intentionally with intent to provoke breach of the peace. In the present case the accused applicant by pushing the cattle into the field of the informant with intent to destroy the crops grown therein, and when the informant forbid him to do so, the applicant accused along with other companions abusing in filthy language began to beat the informant. The FIR lodged by the applicant accused himself admits that the informant scuffled with him and also incident of beating occurred thereby. Prima facie, the aforesaid allegations coming out from both the FIR's lodged with regard to the same incident, no doubt prima facie fulfills the allegations of intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. 22. Sections 503 and 506 IPC runs as under:- S.503. Criminal intimidation.—Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.—A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section. Illustration A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B’s house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation. S.506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Section 506 IPC which makes punishable the offence of criminal intimidation as defined under Section 503 of I.P.C. is also prima facie being constituted from the allegations made in the FIR by the informant against the applicant/accused. As per the allegations made in the FIR it comes out, that when forbidden by the informant the accused applicant criminally intimidated him with threat to his life and limbs. 23. In the light of the above discussion, it is clear that prima facie the offence punishable under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC are found established from the allegations made in the F.I.R. and as such from the evidence collected during the investigation, the submission of charge-sheet cannot be said to be forwarded mechanically without applying the mind by the Investigating Officer to the court for cognizance of offence. 24. The charge sheet has not only been submitted before the court with regard to the offences under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC but also with regard to the offence under SC/ST Act. The court has taken cognizance as pleaded in the application itself, along with other provisions of Indian Penal Code and the offence under Section 3(1) (D) of the SC/ST Act. From the material placed before this court, particularly the certified copy of the charge sheet dated 18.7.2019 filed in the court of Additional District and Sessions Court-3, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh whereupon Sessions Trial no.319/2019 is founded the offence mentioned to be under Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act. Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC/ST Act (as amended) runs as under:- "intentionally insults or intimidates with the intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view” 25. On further perusal of the material placed before the Court, it appears that the offence being entertained by Special Court on the charge sheet submitted by the police under Section 3(1)(D) of the SC/ST Act. 26. On perusal of the F.I.R., which is found registered along with Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(D) of the SC/ST Act. There is no section 3(1)(D) in the Act. If the same be read as Section 3(1)(d), the same runs as under:- "(d) garlands with footwear or parades naked or semi-naked a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;" 27. There is no section 3(1)(D) in the Act. If the same be read as Section 3(1)(d), the same runs as under:- "(d) garlands with footwear or parades naked or semi-naked a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;" 27. The allegations made in the FIR are prima facie though fulfilling the ingredients of offence under Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act but not 3(1)(d) SC/ST Act, so far as the Section 3(1)(D) is concerned does not exist in the Act. There is no allegation of insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate the informant as a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes community in any place within public view. Even then the charge sheet is forwarded and the special court SC/ST Act took cognizance of the offence mechanically, with an obscurity as to which provision of law in SC/ST Act applies. 28. In para 27 of the Inder Mohan Goswami (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "27. The powers possessed by the High Court under section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage." 29. In Inder Mohan Goswami (Supra), Hon'ble Apex Court in para 28 observed as under:- "28. This Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Ors. reported in 1977 CriLJ 1125 observed that the wholesome power under section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. reported in 1977 CriLJ 1125 observed that the wholesome power under section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this court and other courts." 30. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Others (1988) 1 SCC 692 observed as under: "7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage." 31. In the present case, when there is no prima facie case as to the abuse of process on the basis whereof the charge sheet and the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance be quashed, the other ground taken by the applicant accused that the summon was not issued to him after cognizance is baseless from the perusal of the order of Magistrate of taking cognizance. Moreover, if the accused have knowledge of the pendency of criminal proceeding against him and approaches to the High Court for the quashing of charge sheet and summoning order then he cannot be said to be unaware of the issuance of summon and its pendency. If the allegations as to the non service of summons is taken as true, then also merely because of that the FIR and the charge sheet which are found legal and without any error quashing of further proceeding would not be justified on the said ground of alleged non service of summon. 32. So far as the infringement of personal liberty is concerned, the applicant accused when knows about the process issued by the court against him for his appearance it is not good and bonafide on his part to disobey the process by not appearing there, but to approach the High Court for quashing the charge sheet and cognizance order on frivolous grounds. The purpose of issuing process like summons, despite service of summon and on defiance on the part of the accused in not appearing, issuance of bailable warrant and when that too is avoided issuance of non bailable warrant, all are aimed only to procure and ensure the attendance of applicant accused in court for trial. When he appears before the court for trial, he would have sufficient opportunity at every stage therein of being heard by putting defence against prosecution. 33. In the present case, so far as the proceeding under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. is concerned, the submission of charge sheet as well the taking of cognizance of the offence by the court therein is free of any impunity. Simultaneously the cognizance of offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes is concerned, prima facie, from the allegations made in the FIR and the material in the charge-sheet seems to be discrepant with regard to the provision of SC/ST Act wherein the cognizance of the offence is taken. There is an obscurity as to the provision. However, only for the reason that the provision of law as quoted in the FIR or charge-sheet is obscure it cannot be prima facie held that from the allegations in the FIR no offence is being made out in any provisions of the SC/ST Act. There as allegations in the FIR as to the humiliation and criminal intimidation of the informant. There as allegations in the FIR as to the humiliation and criminal intimidation of the informant. As such in the present case the prosecution cannot be said illegitimate. 34. The court concerned which has took cognizance under the SC/ST Act is to be reminded of its duty to evaluate the material allegations with regard to the offence whether or not being constituted under any relevant provision thereto, existing in Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act at the time of hearing the applicant accused on framing of charges under Section 227/228 of the Cr.P.C. The court has to pass a reasoned and cogent order as to the commission of offence under SC/ST Act. 35. The accused applicant though not pleaded in their application, but argued that in the alternative, if the case is not made out with regard to the abuse of process or on any other ground under Section 482 Cr.P.C. then benefit of interim stay of the arrest be given in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 36. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami (Supra) under the head "Personal liberty and the interest of the State" held as under:- Personal liberty and the interest of the State Civilized countries have recognized that liberty is the most precious of all the human rights. The American Declaration of Independence 1776, French Declaration of the Rights of Men and the Citizen 1789, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights 1966 all speak with one voice -liberty is the natural and inalienable right of every human being. Similarly, Article 21 of our Constitution proclaims that no one shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. 48. The issuance of non-bailable warrants involves interference with personal liberty. Arrest and imprisonment means deprivation of the most precious right of an individual. Therefore, the courts have to be extremely careful before issuing non-bailable warrants. 49. Just as liberty is precious for an individual so is the interest of the society in maintaining law and order. 48. The issuance of non-bailable warrants involves interference with personal liberty. Arrest and imprisonment means deprivation of the most precious right of an individual. Therefore, the courts have to be extremely careful before issuing non-bailable warrants. 49. Just as liberty is precious for an individual so is the interest of the society in maintaining law and order. Both are extremely important for the survival of a civilized society. Sometimes in the larger interest of the Public and the State it becomes absolutely imperative to curtail freedom of an individual for a certain period, only then the non-bailable warrants should be issued. When non-bailable warrants should be issued Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to court when summons of bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result. This could be when: * it is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in court; or * the police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a summon; * it is considered that the person could harm someone if not placed into custody immediately. 50. As far as possible, if the court is of the opinion that a summon will suffice in getting the appearance of the accused in the court, the summon or the bailable warrants should be preferred. The warrants either bailable or non-bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, due to the extremely serious consequences and ramifications which ensue on issuance of warrants. The court must very carefully examine whether the Criminal Complaint or FIR has not been filed with an oblique motive. 51. In complaint cases, at the first instance, the court should direct serving of the summons along with the copy of the complaint. If the accused seem to be avoiding the summons, the court, in the second instance should issue bailable-warrant. In the third instance, when the court is fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the court#s proceeding intentionally, the process of issuance of the non-bailable warrant should be resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount, therefore, we caution courts at the first and second instance to refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants. 52. The power being discretionary must be exercised judiciously with extreme care and caution. The court should properly balance both personal liberty and societal interest before issuing warrants. Personal liberty is paramount, therefore, we caution courts at the first and second instance to refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants. 52. The power being discretionary must be exercised judiciously with extreme care and caution. The court should properly balance both personal liberty and societal interest before issuing warrants. There cannot be any straight-jacket formula for issuance of warrants but as a general rule, unless an accused is charged with the commission of an offence of a heinous crime and it is feared that he is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to evade the process of law, issuance of non-bailable warrants should be avoided. 53. The Court should try to maintain proper balance between individual liberty and the interest of the public and the State while issuing non-bailable warrant. 37. The grant of interim order as to stay of arrest till the accused applicant surrender and applies for bail before the court concerned is not justifiable as prima facie the allegations in the FIR and materials in charge-sheet tend to fulfill the ingredients of offence under relevant provision of SC/ST Act which stand parallel to the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 of the IPC. As such the prosecution is found legitimate. Any such grant of interim stay on arrest, impliedly would have effect of diluting the rigour of the legislative intention behind the enactment of Section 18 in the said Act. 38. In view of the above, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge-sheet and the proceeding of case crime no. 80/2019 S.T. No.319/2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Surendra Tiwari and Anr.) pending in the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh is declined and the same is disposed of with following directions:- (i) The accused/applicants to appear before the court promptly without any further delay. (ii) In case the accused/applicants move any prayer for bail the same shall be decided by the court concerned as soon as practicably possible, even on the same day, keeping in mind the purpose of issuance of processes like summon, bailable warrant or non bailable warrant, as the case may be, is to procure and ensure the attendance of the accused in the trial pending against him. (iii) The court concerned is directed to consider the prayer while hearing the accused at the time of framing of charges under Sections 227/228 of the Cr.P.C. with regard to the offences punishable under SC/ST Act with clarity as to the specific provision of law under which particularly offence therein is made out or not and accordingly to proceed further. Registry is directed to send a copy of the order to the court concerned.