ORDER : 1. By invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the applicant original accused No.4 – Nency Manojbhai Patel has preferred this application whereby she is seeking quashment of Special Atrocity Case No.19 of 2020, arises out of the FIR being CR. No.I- 11210004200567 of 2020, registered with Amroli Police Station, District: Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 114 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989. 2. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. Premal Nanavati with learned counsel Ms. Avni Patel appearing for the applicant, learned counsel Mr. Mrudul Barot appearing for and on behalf of the second respondent - original complainant and Mr. Jay Mehta learned State counsel. 3. Brief facts leading to file the present application are that, the incident took place on 25.03.2020 at city Surat. The house of the second respondent and the applicant located in the one in the same society and they were neighbours. On the day of incident, at about 10.30 p.m., the dogs were barking in the society and on hearing the same, the husband of the second respondent Mr. Kiranbhai took a stick to drive them away, and at that point of time, the mother of the applicant co-accused, Ms. Sharmistha, started recording of the incident in her mobile and further she said that she will put the video recording on Facebook. On hearing the said conversation, the witness Kiranbhai in his defence is said that to protect the child, he is trying to drive away the dogs. Meanwhile, the brother of the applicant co-accused Bhargav came with helmet in his hand and hurled abusive on the husband of the second respondent. When he resisted, the accused Bhargav with the helmet had caused injuries to him and also given a feast and kick blows to the complainant when she came to rescue her husband. The accused Bhargav again took in his hand the bricks nearby the place and gave a blow on the witness Kiranbhai and in this fighting, the accused Bhargav torn the T-shirt of the complainant which she had worn at the time of incident. The accused Bhargav again took in his hand the bricks nearby the place and gave a blow on the witness Kiranbhai and in this fighting, the accused Bhargav torn the T-shirt of the complainant which she had worn at the time of incident. So far as the accused Manojbhai, the mother Sharmishtaben and the applicant are concerned, it is alleged that on seeing the incident they came and threatened the complainant and his family, saying that “you people are belongs to Dalit Society and we will expel you from the society here”. It is further alleged that the society members came there and rescued them. 4. In view of the aforesaid incident, the second respondent lodged an FIR for the aforesaid offences against the 4 persons including the applicant herein. After completion of the investigation, the Charge-sheet came to be filed for the said offences wherein the applicant has been shown as accused No.4. On receiving the charge- sheet by the Court, the same came to be registered as Special Atrocity Case No. 19 of 2020, which presently pending before the Additional Sessions Court, Surat. Before the trial Court, the applicant moved a discharge application Exhibit-6, however, the trial Court after hearing the parties thought it fit not to discharge the applicant. 5. Being aggrieved with the lodgement of the FIR and filing of the charge-sheet as well as the order not to discharge from the charges, the applicant has preferred this quashing petition inte-alia stating that she being a family members of the principal accused, has been falsely involved by the second respondent with mala-fide and ulterior motive. 6. Mr. Premal Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the applicant accused has submitted that, the presence of the applicant at the incident was natural as at the relevant time she was residing with her parents. There was no overtact on her part as there is no allegations against her that she has caused injuries to the second respondent or her husband. In such circumstances, where the allegations in the first FIR and charge-sheet case papers taken as its face value and accepted there entirety qua the applicant, do not constitute the offence under Section 323 or 504 of the IPC, the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act are not made out so as to justify prosecution of the accused applicant for the said offence. 7. 7. In view of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel Mr. Premal Nanavati has submitted that after the said incident, the applicant got married with one Viren Patel and presently he settled at Canada and due to pendency of the criminal proceedings, the applicant finds difficulty to get the Police clearance for her Visa, and therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the role attributed to the applicant herein, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law and court and same may be quashed by exercising inherent powers of this Court. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Mrudul Barot reiterating the contents of the reply affidavit, has vehemently opposed the petition and contended that, the Police has collected sufficient materials against the applicant to establish her complicity in the alleged offence and finally she has been chargesheeted. Thus, he would urge that when the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of the offence, the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR. It is in this contest, it was submitted that the entire incident has been captured in the CCTV Footages and same has been seized and recovered by the I.O. and the neighbours who were present, have also pointed finger towards the applicant that she has participated in the alleged offence. In such circumstances, Court may not exercise inherent powers to quash the proceedings qua the applicant. 9. Mr. Jay Mehta, learned APP adopting the contention raised by the learned counsel Mr. Mrudul Barot has submitted that the disputed question of facts as raised herein cannot be examined at this stage as it is subject matter of trial Court. Thus, he would urge that no case is made out to exercise the inherent powers of this Court. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case the issue falls for my consideration as to whether the questioned FIR and consequent proceedings are liable to be quashed in exercise of extraordinary and inherent powers of this Court? 11. It is settled that the powers under Section 482 has to be exercised by the High Court, inter-alia, to prevent to abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 11. It is settled that the powers under Section 482 has to be exercised by the High Court, inter-alia, to prevent to abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The High Court ordinary could not exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings and in particular, FIR and charge-sheets unless the allegations contained therein even if given a face value and taken to be correct in their entirety disclosed no cognizable offence, and therefore, the powers possess by the High Court are very wide and very platitude of the power requires great portion in its exercise and should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex-debito gustitiae to do real and substantive justice for the administration of which alone the Court exists. 12. Having regard to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and material in the form of charge-sheet, it reveals that, the voluntary injuries caused by the accused Bhargav as after hearing the conversation by using his helmet, the injuries were caused upon the witness and second respondent. In such circumstances, the presence of the applicant accused being a daughter, was natural at the place. On perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and material placed on record in the form of charge-sheet including the Panchnama, in relation to the seizure of the DVD, except the presence of applicant at the place, nothing being disclosed that she had caused injuries to the complainant as well as her husband. In such circumstances, prima-facie, this Court is of the view that the ingredients of the offence of voluntarily causing hurt is defined under Section 323 are not attracted qua the applicant. Merely presence of her with the co-accused in a group would not give a rise to infer that she has abated and aided the accused in commission of the offence alleged. The second charge facing by the applicant is that she made intentional remarks insulting the complainant to provoke breach of the peace as defined under Section 504 of the IPC. On perusal of the charge-sheet case papers nothing being specifically individual alleged against the applicant that she has spoke insulting remarks with intend to provoke the breach of peace. The second charge facing by the applicant is that she made intentional remarks insulting the complainant to provoke breach of the peace as defined under Section 504 of the IPC. On perusal of the charge-sheet case papers nothing being specifically individual alleged against the applicant that she has spoke insulting remarks with intend to provoke the breach of peace. On bare reading of the FIR between the line, the complainant has made a general allegations that all the accused jointly alleged that they will expel them from the society as they are belongs to Dalit Society. The accused are member of one family. The entire family has been impleaded as accused. In such circumstances, the general allegations as made qua the applicant would not attract the ingredients of section 504 of IPC. Thus, this Court is prima-facie of the view that due to the alleged incident the name of the applicant being a younger daughter has been disclosed despite of the fact that there was no overtact on her part. 12.1 The applicant has been charged with the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act. The section 3(2)(va) inserted by Act 1 of 2016, with effect from 26.01.2016, vide S.O. 152(E), dated 18.01.2016, which reads as under:- “Section-3- Punishment for offence of Atrocities – (2) whoever, not being a member of schedule casts or scheduled tribe. (va) commits any offence specify in the scheduled, against a person or property knowing that such person is member of scheduled casts or scheduled tribe or such property belongs to such members shall be punishable with the such punishment as specified under the IPC for such offences and shall also be liable to fine.” 13. In the facts of the present case, as discussed hereinabove the allegations made in the FIR and charge- sheet case papers prima-facie do not disclose or make out a case for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC. In order to establish the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act, it is required to be established that the accused not being a member of SC ST Caste has committed any offence specified in the schedule of the Act, against a person who is a member of SC ST Caste. On perusal of the schedule of the Act 1989, section 504 of the IPC is not included in the schedule. On perusal of the schedule of the Act 1989, section 504 of the IPC is not included in the schedule. In the schedule, section 323 of the IPC is added and mentioned. However, as discussed in the preceding para of this order, the prima-facie offence under Section 323 of the IPC qua the applicant is not made out. In such circumstances, where the commission of the offence specified in the schedule is not disclosed or made out against the applicant the provision section 3(2)(va) is not attracted or satisfied. 14. For the reasons recorded, this Court is convinced that the continuation of the criminal proceedings qua the applicant would amount to an abuse of process of law and court and this is a fit case to quash the proceedings by exercising inherent powers. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The proceedings of Special Atrocity Case No.19 of 2020 arises out of the FIR being CR. No.I-11210004200567 of 2020, registered with Amroli Police Station, District: Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 114 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989, is quashed qua the applicant herein. 15. The observations made hereinabove are primafacie in nature and confined to the adjudication of the present application. Trial Court shall not get influenced by the said observations during the course of trial.