JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Tushar Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri Santosh Kumar Kanaujia, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 and Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the entire record. 2. Learned A.G.A. has already filed the counter affidavit. In reply thereto learned counsel for the appellant has filed the rejoinder affidavit. Vide order dated 19.7.2023 learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 was granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit, but till today no counter affidavit has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 submits that he will argue the matter without counter affidavit. 4. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants, Ashwnee Kumar and Avinash Bhatt with a prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 11.04.2019 as well as the impugned consequential summoning order dated 08.12.2022 of Case Crime No.1613 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri pending before the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act (A.D.J.-II), Lakhimpur Kheri. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent No.3 has lodged the first information report by making false and baseless allegations. And the allegations levelled against the appellants are made with malafide intention due to village party bandi. No such incident took place, as alleged by the prosecution. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there were certain substitutions made in the the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on 26-01-2016 and the present F.I.R. was lodged in section 3(1)(x) of the S.C./ S.T. Act 1989 under the wrong pretext ignoring the substitution made on 26-01-2016. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellants places reliance upon the said substitution in section 3(1)(x) of the S.C./ S.T. Act 1989 which is reproduced below:- Section 3. Punishments for offences atrocities. (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-- (x) corrupts or fouls the water of any spring, reservoir or any other source ordinarily used by members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used; 8. (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-- (x) corrupts or fouls the water of any spring, reservoir or any other source ordinarily used by members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used; 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that looking into the allegations made by the complainant, upon which the F.I.R. was registered on 23-11-2017 does not prima facie disclose any act of the appellants under section 3(1)(x) of the S.C./ S.T. Act in as much as the alleged act of the appellants as narrated in the contents of the FIR at best disclose the commission of offence under section 3(1)(r) of the S.C/ S.T. Act, 1989. And once the FIR was registered under the wrong section then it was incumbent upon the police officials to rectify the same and file the charge sheet under correct Sections. section 3(1)(r) of the S.C./ S.T. Act 1989 which is reproduced below:- Section 3. Punishments for offences atrocities. (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-- (r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; 9. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellants 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 been assured on behalf of the appellants that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused are not having any criminal history. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the impugned summoning order dated 11-04-2019 passed by the learned court below is in complete disregard of the facts. 11. It has also been pointed out that the accused are not having any criminal history. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the impugned summoning order dated 11-04-2019 passed by the learned court below is in complete disregard of the facts. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the case lodged under Section 3(1) (x) of S.C./S.T. Act did not apply against the appellants because as per the complaint, the incident does not took place in the public view and public place. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. 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. 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." 12. Learned counsel for the appellants 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. There was no occasion for the appellants to harass the opposite party no.3 or to use physical force on him. The summoning order passed by learned court below is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, it may be quashed. 13. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the aforesaid summoning order and submitted that prima facie offence is made out, however, he is unable to dispute the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants. 14. 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 FIR at best disclose the commission of offence under section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and that to was neither in public place nor public view as such aforesaid section is not attracted against the appellants, even though the other Sections of I.P.C. are also not attracted against the appellants, 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 11-04-2019 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. 15. 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 Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866 , (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. 15. 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 Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 S.C. 866 , (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 and (v) Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 . 16. 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. 17. In S.W. Palankattkar & Others Vs State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that quashing of 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. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and in view of the observation made above, the impugned summoning order dated 11.04.2019 as well as the impugned consequential summoning order dated 08.12.2022 of Case Crime No.1613 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri pending before the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act (A.D.J.-II), Lakhimpur Kheri. is hereby quashed so far as it relates to the instant appellants Ashwnee Kumar and Avinash Bhatt. 19. 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. 20. is hereby quashed so far as it relates to the instant appellants Ashwnee Kumar and Avinash Bhatt. 19. 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. 20. 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.