JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. Both these criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No.156 of 2020, now pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Dhanbad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioner no.1- Sudhanshu Pandey of Cr.M.P. No. 2376 of 2021 died during the pendency of the case, hence, this criminal miscellaneous petition is not pressed in respect of petitioner no.1- Sudhanshu Pandey. 4. So Cr.M.P. No.2376 of 2021 is dismissed in respect of petitioner no.1- Sudhanshu Pandey as not pressed. 5. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners being not the members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes intentionally insulted and intimated the informant and her husband who are the members of schedules tribes with intent to humiliate them and abused the informant and her husband by their caste name and assaulted them and threatened them to forcibly dispossess them from the land, the possession of which was entrusted to the informant and her husband by Land Returning Circle Officer in Land Return Case No. 2/2017-18 dated 19.12.2017. 6. On the basis of the written report, police registered Baliapur P.S. Case No. 156 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B/34 of Indian Penal Code as well as under the penal provision of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 7. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are false. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners of Cr.M.P. No. 2376 of 2021 have sold the land to the petitioner no.2 of Cr.M.P. No. 2384 of 2021. It is then submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that there is no allegation of any forgery having been committed by the petitioners of both the two criminal miscellaneous petitions and this criminal case has been instituted by the informant for wreaking vengeance upon the petitioners even though the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and Original Suit No. 565 of 2018 has been filed and Civil Misc. Appeal No. 24 of 2019 is sub-judice between the parties to the case. It is next submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that no date and time of the occurrence has been alleged in the FIR and no offence punishable under any of the penal provisions of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. 8. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of B. Venkateswaran and Ors. vs P. Bakthavatchalam reported in 2023 SCCOnLine SC 14, wherein, in the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was satisfied from the materials on the record that no case for the offence punishable under the penal provision of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was made out and as prima facie, none of the ingredients of any penal provision of law were made out, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the facts and circumstances of that case quashed and set aside the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the appellant; it is submitted by the learned senior counsel that in this case also, the penal provision of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been invoked only for the purpose of putting pressure on the petitioners to back out from the civil dispute; even though no offence is made of in the facts of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No.156 of 2020 be quashed and set aside. 9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No.156 of 2020. 9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No.156 of 2020. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the undisputed facts remains that the informant and her husband are members of scheduled tribe and in Land Returning Case No. 2/2017-18, the possession of the land in question was handed over to the informant vide order dated 19.12.2017 by the Land Returning Circle Officer and the petitioners are interfering with the enjoyment of the rights of the informant and her husband over the said land and the petitioners are not the members of scheduled tribe hence, the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (g) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the petitioners. Further, the averments made in the FIR also makes out the offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 but fairly submitted that the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 and 120B of Indian Penal Code is not made out. 10. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the High Court in exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. will not question the veracity of the averments made in the FIR/complaint, the quashing of which is sought for as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, paragraph no. 80 of which reads as under :- “80. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr. 80 of which reads as under :- “80. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr. P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr. P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr. P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, as rightly submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that there is absolutely no averment regarding any of the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code in the entire FIR hence, there is no justifiable reason to continue with the said offences for which the FIR has been registered but so far as the offence punishable under the penal provision of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, the allegation made in the FIR prima facie constitute the offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (g), 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 12. So far as the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of B. Venkateswaran and Ors. 12. So far as the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of B. Venkateswaran and Ors. vs. P. Bakthavatchalam (supra) is concerned, the facts of this case is entirely different from the facts of that case as in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was satisfied from the materials on the record of that no case for the offence punishable under the penal provision of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out; in respect of which the FIR was registered and unlike in this case, where the offence punishable under the penal provisions of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as already indicated above exists. Further, in that case, though the Division Bench of the High Court stayed the proceeding against the temple in question, but in this case though some of the petitioners have filed civil dispute but no order of injunction in their favour has been passed by any competent court of law. 13. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the ratio of B. Venkateswaran and Ors. vs. P. Bakthavatchalam (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. 14. In view of the discussions made above, the FIR registered in connection with Baliapur P.S. Case No.156 of 2020 so far as it relates to the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside but it is made clear that the FIR will continue regarding the rest of the offences for which the same has been registered. 15. In the result, both these criminal miscellaneous petitions are disposed of accordingly. 16. The interim order if any, granted earlier stands vacated.