JUDGMENT Shamim Ahmed, J. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Charu Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the entire record. 2. As per the office report dated 16.03.2022 notice has already been served upon opposite party No.2 but till no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No.2 nor any counsel is present today to represent the opposite party No.2. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant presses urgency in the matter and submits that the appellant is an old person and is aged about 72 years. Thus, this Court has no option but to proceed for final arguments in the matter. 4. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14A(1) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred to quash entire criminal proceeding of Special Trial No.944/2021 (State v. Vinod & Another), including cognizance and summoning order dated 21.08.2021 under Section 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and section 3(1)Da of SC/ST Act, passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bahraich, arising out of F.I.R. No.166/2021 under Section 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)Da & Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Payagpur, District-Bahraich. It is further prayed on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings of the abovementioned case may be stayed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. The appellant is a law abiding and is aged about 72 years, no such incident took place as alleged by opposite party No.2. He further highlighted this fact that as per the first information report the date of incident is 15.02.2015 which allegedly occurred in front of the house of the appellant and not in public place. He further submits that the present F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of an application given by the opposite party No.2 to the SC/ST Commission on 07.01.2021 i.e. after more than five years of the alleged incident only with the intention to gain some financial aid from the State Exchequer. He further submits that the present F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of an application given by the opposite party No.2 to the SC/ST Commission on 07.01.2021 i.e. after more than five years of the alleged incident only with the intention to gain some financial aid from the State Exchequer. Adding to his arguments, he further submits that in pursuance to the directions issued by the SC/ST Commission, the present F.I.R. has been lodged on 05.06.2021 under Section 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) Da and Dha of SC/ST Act, thus, it appears that the present F.I.R. has been lodged after taking legal advice from the legal expert. He further submits that as per the version of the F.I.R. as well as from the averments made in the application dated 07.01.2021, there is no possibility at all that the alleged incident took place in the public place or there was any public view. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that as per its own case set up by the opposite party No.2, that he was passing from the gate of the house of the appellant and the appellant started beating him, thus, it appears that there is no possibility of public view. He further submits that as per the injury report which was conducted after six days from the alleged incident all the injuries appear to be manufactured and are simple in nature, and the opposite party No.2 only complained for pain due to the injuries allegedly caused to him by the appellant. He further submits that the Investigating Officer of the present case without considering the material on record has submitted the charge-sheet in a most mechanical manner and learned Magistrate has also taken cognizance in a routine manner, thus, the entire proceeding is nothing but abuse of process of law. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant draws the attention of this Court that the alleged incident did not happen in public place nor it happened in public view, thus, section 3(1)(r) and (s) of SC/ST Act is not attracted in the present case. 8. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. 8. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history. 9. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710 and placed reliance upon para 13 and 18 of the aforesaid judgment, which are reproduced hereunder:- "13. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste. 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." 10. 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." 10. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no offence of S.C./S.T. Act are applicable even though offence under the provisions of I.P.C. are also not applicable. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet on the basis of fake and fabricated version of the complainant. The alleged incident never occurred. There was no occasion for the appellant to harass the opposite party no.2. The summoning order passed by learned court below is not sustainable in the eye of law, therefore, it may be quashed. 11. Learned A.G.A-I opposed the prayer for quashing of the aforesaid entire criminal proceedings and submits that prima facie offence is made out and the Investigating Officer has rightly submitted the charge-sheet after proper investigation. She further submits that the appellant is not entitled for any relief, thus, the present appeal may be dismissed but she does not dispute this fact that the present F.I.R. has been lodged only after moving an application by opposite party No.2 on 07.01.2021 i.e. more than five years of the alleged incident before the SC/ST Commission and she is also unable to dispute the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. 12. 12. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and as per the contents of the complaint as well as the application moved by the opposite party no.2 before the S.C./S.T. Commission after more than five years of alleged incident, the incident does not appears to happen, thus, Section 3(1) Da and 3(1) Dha of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not attracted against the appellant as the incident did not occur in public place and thus have no public view, even though the other Sections of I.P.C. are also not attracted against the appellant, as such, considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma (Supra), this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The summoning order dated 21.08.2021 passed by the court below is liable to be reversed and set aside as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed. 13. Further the Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:- (i) R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , (ii) State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 and (v) Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 . 14. From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continued. 15. In S.W. Palankattkar & others v. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. 15. In S.W. Palankattkar & others v. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and in view of the observations made above, the entire proceedings of Special Trial No.944/2021 (State v. Vinod & Another), including cognizance and summoning order dated 21.08.2021 under Section 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and section 3(1)Da of SC/ST Act, passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bahraich, arising out of F.I.R. No.166/2021 under Section 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)Da & Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Payagpur, District-Bahraich are hereby quashed so far as it relates to the instant appellant, namely Shiv Sagar Alias Shiv Sagar Giri. 17. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad. 18. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.