ORDER : 1. Defects pointed out by Office are hereby overruled. 2. The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR No.39/2020, registered at Police Station Kesrisinghpur, District Sriganganagar for offences under Sections 279, 323, 341 & 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(R)(S) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No.2 lodged a report to the effect that on 28.02.2020, the complainant along with Shyam Lal Agarwal was going to attend a marriage function in Srikaranpur by a car bearing No.RJ-13-CC-1080. The said car was being driven by the complainant in the capacity of driver. At about 12:10 PM, when they reached near Gulabevala Bus Stand, due to damaged roads, the complainant suddenly applied the brake of the car and consequent thereto, a car coming from behind, which was being driven by the petitioner No.1, hit the car of the complainant. Upon which, the petitioner No.1 came out of his car with a stick and broke the mirror of the complainant’s car. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 telephonically called the petitioner No.2 and they started beating with the complainant and also abused him using caste oriented language. When Shyam Lal Agarwal and Babu Ram Maheshwari came to save the complainant, then the petitioners also gave beating to them. 4. On the said report, the Police registered the FIR for the aforesaid offences and started investigation. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned FIR, the present misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners. 6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that from the perusal of the FIR as well as other documents, it appears that the FIR has been lodged with malafide intention just with a view to put undue pressure upon the petitioner. This is merely a case of an accident and no offences as alleged are made out against the present petitioners. It is also contended that the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act, 2015 are missing in the present case i.e. (1) intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe, and (2) in any place within public view. 7. It is also contended that the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act, 2015 are missing in the present case i.e. (1) intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe, and (2) in any place within public view. 7. Counsel further submits that from the contention of FIR as well as statements of witnesses, no offence under Section 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act is also made out against the present petitioners because the petitioner had no knowledge regarding the caste of the complainant. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the FIR filed against the petitioners may be quashed. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that according to perusal of the FIR as well as other documents, a prima facie case is made out against present petitioners. In the investigation, the Investigating Officer also found the offences proved against the present petitioners. So, the FIR may not be quashed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR as well as material available on record. 10. From the perusal of the FIR and material on record, it is revealed that due to an accident, altercation occurred between the petitioners and complainant and the petitioners caused injuries to the complainant which is evident from the injury reports of the complainant party. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. So far as the offences under Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, in the first instance, it is relevant to refer to the provision contained in Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act, 2015 which reads as under: "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; (s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view.” 11. Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 2015 reads as under: “Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe- (va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal code for such offences and shall also be liable to fine." 12. Thus, from the bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that in order to make out offences under Section 3(1)(R)(S) of the SC/ST Act following ingredients must subsist: (i) the act attributed should amount to intentional insult or intimidation; (ii) it should run with the intention to humiliate; (iii) it should be directed against a member of SC or ST; and (iv) the act attributed should have taken place in public view. In the present case the act attributed to the petitioner does not amount to intentional insult or intimidation because the incident in the case in hand is nothing but only a free fight in aggression and both the parties have received injuries in the alleged incident. The said incident occurred at a public place but not in a public view as according to the independent witnesses, at the time of incident, no abusive language was used by the petitioners against the complainant. Furthermore, though the police after thorough investigation had found the offences prima facie proved under Sections 279, 427, 323, 341 and 504/34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(R)(S) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act against both the petitioners, but according to the statements of the witnesses and from the perusal of ingredients of FIR, offences under Sections 3(1)(R)(S) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act are not at all made out against the petitioners as no abusive language was used by them against the complainant when the incident took place, which is evident from statements of the independent witnesses. The police in its investigation report has only mentioned that since the accused petitioners and Shyam lal, the employer of complainant, were having adjoining agricultural fields and Mandi Kesrisinghpur is a small town, therefore, there is probability that accused petitioners knew that the complainant belongs to Scheduled caste category. 13. The police in its investigation report has only mentioned that since the accused petitioners and Shyam lal, the employer of complainant, were having adjoining agricultural fields and Mandi Kesrisinghpur is a small town, therefore, there is probability that accused petitioners knew that the complainant belongs to Scheduled caste category. 13. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that offences under Sections 3(1)(R)(S) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act are not proved against the present petitioners. Thus, the impugned FIR in respect of offences under Sections 3(1)(R)(S) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act is here by quashed against the petitioners. 14. However, so far as offences under Sections 279, 427, 323, 341 and 504/34 of IPC are concerned, prima facie from the ingredients of the FIR as well as statements of the witnesses are found proved against the petitioners. 15. The present misc. petition is partly allowed accordingly. Stay petition also stands disposed of.