JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Md. Sajid Yunus Warsi along with Mr. Md. Asadul Haque, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 10.12.2021, the prayer of which was amended subsequently vide order dated 01.09.2022 passed in I.A. No. 1186 of 2022 arising out of SC/ST P.S. Case No. 2 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 873 of 2016, pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur. 3. The FIR has been lodged by the informant/opposite party no. 2 alleging therein that he belongs to lower caste and having private shops which he proposed to give it to petitioners on rent. The petitioners have called mother of the informant namely Bimla Ravidas at their house and gave Rs. 2,000/- and thereafter again give Rs. 1,000/- to his mother. The amount was given for the purpose to take the shop on rent. It has been further alleged that due to confusion in negotiation the informant wanted to return the amount to the petitioners but they refused to take the same. In June, 2016 the mother of the informant and Md. Saukat Ali went to house of the petitioners to refund the amount but Jahagir told to refund it later. It has been also alleged that the accused persons have abused the informant in the name of caste and was blackmailing on the basis of agreement. They were also giving threatening to the informant and, thereafter, the FIR has been lodged by the informant. 4. Mr. Md. Sajid Yunus Warsi along with Mr. Md. Asadul Haque, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR was instituted against the petitioners and other persons. He further submits that however chargesheet has been submitted only under SC/ST Act. So far as Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, charge-sheet has not been submitted against the petitioners. He also submits that the ingredient of SC/ST Act is not made out and the case is purely civil in nature. He further submits that in the entire allegation there is no allegation that it has happened in public view. So far as Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, charge-sheet has not been submitted against the petitioners. He also submits that the ingredient of SC/ST Act is not made out and the case is purely civil in nature. He further submits that in the entire allegation there is no allegation that it has happened in public view. He submits that the learned court has taken cognizance without considering this aspect of the matter. 5. Per contra, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that there are allegations and the learned court has taken cognizance by passing reasoned order and, therefore, this Court may not entertain this petition, at this stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the State submits that charge-sheet has been submitted and the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. 7. In light of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds that in the complaint, the allegations are for not providing the shop on rent. The dispute is with regard to shop in question. On perusal of the complaint, it transpires that the caste name of opposite party no. 2 taken by the petitioners, is not disclosed in the complaint petition. It has happened in public view, is not apparent on perusal of the complaint petition. The police has submitted charge-sheet and two of the accused persons have been exonerated. The complaint was filed under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as SC/ST Act. The police has not found any ingredient of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and chargesheet has not been submitted under that Section. The learned court has taken cognizance under SC/ST Act. It appears that in the complaint petition, there are allegations of rent with regard to shop and subsequently in the last paragraph only, taking caste name by the petitioners has been disclosed. It appears that for civil dispute, only to implicate the petitioners unnecessarily SC/ST Act has been incorporated. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, (2020) 10 SCC 710 . Paragraphs 18 and 22 of the said judgment are quoted herein-below: “18. It appears that for civil dispute, only to implicate the petitioners unnecessarily SC/ST Act has been incorporated. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, (2020) 10 SCC 710 . Paragraphs 18 and 22 of the said judgment are quoted herein-below: “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 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. xxx xxx xxx 22. The appellant had sought quashing of the charge-sheet on the ground that the allegation does not make out an offence under the Act against the appellant merely because Respondent 2 was a Scheduled Caste since the property dispute was not on account of the fact that Respondent 2 was a Scheduled Caste. The property disputes between a vulnerable section of the society and a person of upper caste will not 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.” 8. Admittedly for a civil dispute, the case has been lodged. The police has not found the allegation with regard to Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as charge-sheet has been submitted under SC/ST Act. 9. In view of the above facts and considering the judgment passed in Hitesh Verma (supra) and also considering that it has not happened in public view, no case under the said Act is made out against the petitioners. 9. In view of the above facts and considering the judgment passed in Hitesh Verma (supra) and also considering that it has not happened in public view, no case under the said Act is made out against the petitioners. Accordingly, entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 10.12.2021, arising out of SC/ST P.S. Case No. 2 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 873 of 2016, pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur is, hereby, quashed. 10. Resultantly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of. 11. Interim order dated 10.11.2017 stands vacated.