JUDGMENT : (CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.) Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Kumar Praveen, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The present appeal has been filed for quashing the cognizance order dated 29.06.2024, as passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai, in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 17 of 2022 registered for the offence under Sections 307, 323, 342, 436 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the ‘I.P.C.’) and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”), whereby and whereunder final form has been submitted by the Investigating OfÏcer on 31.12.2022 vide Final Form No. 37/2022 in favour of the appellants, despite of that the learned Judge has been pleased to take cognizance for the offence under Sections 323, 342, 436 & 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act against the appellants. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant, who belongs to dusadh caste, on the alleged date of occurrence, was sleeping with Sikandar Sah (witness no. 1) in the ofÏce of their shop of “Balu Gitti”. It was stated further that in the midnight of 7/8.02.2022, all the accused persons surrounded both of them and appellant no. 1 started abusing him by taking his caste name and ordered the other co-accused to throw him in fire. Upon which, all the accused persons tried to push both of them in fire, but when local people assembled there, all the accused persons fled away. The complainant further alleged that he identified the accused persons in the light of fire flame. In the said incident, house belongings costing about Rs. One Lakh was turned to ash. The complainant further stated that main reason behind this occurrence is a dispute over passage of lane, for which he was being abused by the accused persons by taking his caste name. Thereafter, a written information was given to local police on 08.02.2022 to SC/ST Police Station, but after enquiry, no F.I.R. was lodged against the accused persons. The complainant further stated that main reason behind this occurrence is a dispute over passage of lane, for which he was being abused by the accused persons by taking his caste name. Thereafter, a written information was given to local police on 08.02.2022 to SC/ST Police Station, but after enquiry, no F.I.R. was lodged against the accused persons. Ultimately, the present complaint being Complaint Case No. 14 of 2022 was lodged on 14.02.2022 against the accused persons, which was sent to SC/ST Police Station vide order dated 28.03.2022 for institution of F.I.R. under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Upon which, SC/ST P.S. Case No. 17 of 2022 has been registered on 02.06.2022. 4. Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the present complaint case is a classical example of the fact that how the provision of SC/ST Act is being misused in our society. In this context, it is pointed out by Mr. Agrawal that admittedly alleged mischief was caused with property of witness no. 1, but intentionally, respondent no. 2, who was one of the employee of witness no. 1 and belongs to scheduled caste community, was made complainant in the present complaint petition, which is sufÏcient to suggest the malafide intention and oblique motive of the complainant and also witness no. 1 namely, Sikandar Sah. 5. It is further submitted by Mr. Agrawal that the complaint in issue not appears supported by afÏdavit, on the basis of which the F.I.R. was lodged. It is submitted that on this ground alone, the pending proceeding is required to be quashed. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Babu Venkatesh and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. reported in (2022) 5 SCC 639 . 6. It is further submitted by Mr. Agrawal that admittedly the dispute arisen out of land dispute for which the matter was pending before the Circle OfÏcer, Begusarai at the time of occurrence. It is further pointed out that from the order under appeal, which was also preferred before the District Magistrate, Begusarai, it transpires that it is witness no. 1, who is the employer of this complainant, repeatedly put an unauthorized partition on disputed piece of land for disturbing one or another nearby occupants including the appellants. In this context, Mr. It is further pointed out that from the order under appeal, which was also preferred before the District Magistrate, Begusarai, it transpires that it is witness no. 1, who is the employer of this complainant, repeatedly put an unauthorized partition on disputed piece of land for disturbing one or another nearby occupants including the appellants. In this context, Mr. Agrawal further relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Gulam Mustafa Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 603. 7. Mr. Agrawal, further submitted that after investigation, police submitted final form and did not sent up the appellants for facing trial but learned Special Court without assigning any reason, by taking a different view, took cognizance against the appellants. In this context, it is further pointed out that interestingly cognizance was taken initially vide order dated 07.10.2023 for the offence under Section 307 and 452 of the I.P.C., but subsequently learned Special court, on the basis of a petition pressed by learned Special Public Prosecutor, modified his earlier order by saying that cognizance taken under Section 307 and 452 I.P.C. was due to typographical error, which only suggests that in very mechanical and casual manner, the matter was proceeded while taking cognizance qua occurrence in issue. 8. It is also pointed out that from facial perusal of complaint petition, no criminal case is made out against the appellants, as admittedly the complainant was not the eye witness of the occurrence and, therefore, in terms of golden principle as settled through State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], this cognizance order is fit to be quashed/set-aside. 9. A notice was issued by this Court to the complainant/respondent no. 2 vide order dated 17.10.2024. 10. In this context, Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Special P.P. submitted that information regarding present pending proceeding has already been given to the informant/respondent no. 2, but despite of same informant/respondent no. 2, failed to join the present pending proceeding. 11. Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Special P.P., while opposing the present quashing appeal, submitted that complainant belong to SC/ST community and alleged abuse by taking caste name appears to be made in public view, however, he could not disputed the factual and legal submission as advanced by Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants. 12. 11. Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Special P.P., while opposing the present quashing appeal, submitted that complainant belong to SC/ST community and alleged abuse by taking caste name appears to be made in public view, however, he could not disputed the factual and legal submission as advanced by Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants. 12. It appears out of submission and perusal of record that the alleged occurrence took place on intervening night of 7/8 th February 2022, for which a complaint was filed on 14th February 2022 which was registered as complaint case no. 14/2022 before the learned Special Court (SC/ST Act), Begusarai. It appears from perusal of complaint that same not appears supported by afÏdavit and thus by hit by legal ratio as settled through Babu Venkatesh’ case (supra). Subsequently, said complaint was forwarded to concerned S.H.O. for investigation after lodging the F.I.R. on 28.03.2022, whereafter the F.I.R. was lodged on 2 nd June, 2022, and police after investigation submitted final form against the appellants/accused on 31.12.2022 with reason that allegation found not true. It appears from impugned cognizance order that without assigning any reason while taking a different view to that of final report as submitted by police after investigation, simply by referring few paragraphs of the case diary which is para 6, 7, 8, 40 & 41, learned Special Court took cognizance against the appellants/ accused. 13. It appears from impugned cognizance order that without assigning any reason while taking a different view to that of final report as submitted by police after investigation, simply by referring few paragraphs of the case diary which is para 6, 7, 8, 40 & 41, learned Special Court took cognizance against the appellants/ accused. 13. For better understanding, it would be apposite to reproduce the complaint petition, which reads as under: ^^U;k;ky; Jheku fo'ks"k U;k;k/kh'k vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr vf/kfu;e] csxqljk;A ukylh okn l[a;k%& uke ifjoknh%& jfoUnz ikloku mez yxHkx o"kZ is0 jkeLo:i ikloku lkfdu&dSFkek] Fkkuk&eqQfly] ftyk&csxqljkA eksckby ua0 %& 7760446023 cuke uke vfHk;qDrx.k%& 1- lquhy dqekj egrksa is0 fo'kqunso egrksa] mez yxHkx 50 o"kZ 2- fdj.k nsoh tkS0 lquhy dqekj egrksa] mez yxHkx 45 o"kZ 3- lquhy dqekj egrks dk iq= uke ukekywe is0 lquhy dqekj egrksa mez yxHkx 20 o"kZA lHkh lkfdu & ck?kk okMZ ua 29] Fkkuk & uxj] ftyk & csxqljk;A ,oa pkj vKkr O;fDRkA uke xokgu%& 1- fldanj lkg is0 Lo ukjk;.k lkg 2- vthr lkg is0 fldanj lkg 3- uouhr lkg is0 fldanj lkg lHkh lkfdu& ck?kk okMZ ua 29] Fkkuk&uxj ¼yksfg;kuxj vks- ih0½] ftyk&csxqljkA okfd;s xokgu dk uke ckn esa nsaxsaA ?kVuk LFky %& lkfdu& egYyk &ck?kk okMZ ua 29] Fkkuk&uxj ¼yksfg;kuxj vks- ih0½] ftyk&csxqljk fLFkr fldanj lkg dk ckyw fxV~Vh LVksj ,oa Qwl djdV dk cuk vkWfQl ftlesa lkeku j[kk gqvkA ?kVuk frfFk ,oa le;%& fnukad 07@08&02&2022 lkseokj eaxyokj cq/kokj dh lkekU; jkf= le; 2-05 cts jkf=A /kkjk%& 307] 323] 342] 436] 452 Hkk0 na0 fo0 ,oa 3 ( 1) (r) (s) vuq0 tk0@t- tk- vR;kpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;eA egk'k;! fuosnuiowZd dguk gS fd ifjoknh vuqlwfpr tkfr ds vraxZr nqlk/k tkfr dk O;fDr gSA mi;qZDr of.kZr ?kVuk frfFk ,oa le; dks ifjoknh vius ekfyd fldanj lkg ¼xokg la 1½ ds lkfdu ck?kk okMZ ua 29 Fkkuk uxj ¼yksfg;kuxj vks- ih0½ ftyk cxs qljk; fLFkr ckyw] fxV~Vh LVksj ds Qwl djdV ls cus vkWfQl esa vius ekfyd xokg la0 1 ds lkFk lks;k gqvk Fkk rks mlh le; [kj&[kj dh vkokt ij ifjoknh ,oa xokg la0 1 dh uhan [kqyh rks ns[kk fd vkWfQl esa vkx /k/kd jgk gSA ifjoknh ,oa xokg la0 1 nksuksa viuh &viuh tku cpkus okLrs VkVh QkM+ dj ckgj fudyk rks mi;qZDr uketn lHkh vfHk;qDrx.k pkj vU; vKkr O;fDRk ds lkFk feydj ifjoknh ,oa xokg la[;k 1 dks pkjks rjQ ls ?ksj fy;k vkSj vfHk;qDr l[a;k 1 lquhy dqekj egrksa xkyh nsrs gq, dgk fd lkys nqlk/k dks vkx esa Qsad nksA bl ij lHkh vfHk;qDr feydj ifjoknh ,oa xokg l[a;k 1 fldanj lkg dks idM+dj tku ekjus dh fu;r ls vkWfQl esa yxk, vkx esa /kdsyus yxs vkSj tykus dk iwjk iz;kl fd;s fdUrq ifjoknh ,oa xokg l[a;k 1 ds }kjk gYyk djus ij xokgu igqaps rks vfHk;qDrx.k ifjoknh ,oa xokg la[;k 1 dks NksM+dj HkkxsA ty jgs vkWfQl dh vkx dh ykiV ls jks'kuh esa ifjoknh ,oa xokgksa us vfHk;qDrksa dks igpkukA vfHk;qDrksa }kjk ifjoknh ds ekfyd xokg la0 1 ds vkWfQl esa vkx yxkus ls vkWfQl ,oa vkWfQl esa j[kk nks pkSdh] ,d Vªad] isVh ,d] Hkh-vkbZ-ih-] vVSph ,d] pnjk dk dksBh vukt j[kus dk ,d] xSl pqYgk NksVk flysaMj ,d] nks fcNkou] nks jtkbZ] ,oa Vaªd cDlk esa j[kk lkeku dqy dher ,d yk[k #i;k ty dj {kfrxzLr gks x;kA vfHk;qDrksa us lksple>dj bjknru ?kVuk dks vatke fn;k gSA fnukad 26&01&22 dh jkf= esa lqulku ikdj VkVh QkM+dj lkeku dk pksjh dj fy;k Fkk ftldh lqpuk fnukad 27&01&22 dks vKkr pksjksa ds fo:) yksfg;kuxj Fkkuk dks fn;k x;k Fkk dksbZ dkjZokbZ ugha gksus ij ifjoknh ds lkFk xokg la[;k 1 mDr vkWfQl lg LVksj esa lqj{kk dh n`f"V ls lksus yxk rc vfHk;qDr la[;k 1 us vU; vfHk;qDrksa ds lkFk feydj tykdj ekjus dh uh;r ls bl izdkj dh ?kVuk fd;kA ?kVuk dk dkj.k gS fd iwoZ ls jkLrk ds fookn dks lnk&lnk ds fy, lekIr djus dh ea'kk ls ljsvke nql/kok] rsfy;k dgdj viekfur fd;k ,oa vkx yxkdj vkWfQl lg ?kj lkeku lfgr tyk fn;k vkSj ifjoknh o xokg la[;k 1 dks vkx esa tykus dk Hkjiwj iz;kl fd;kA ifjoknh us eksckby Qksu ds }kjk nedy foHkkx ,oa iVuk dks Qksu fd;k rks vfXu'kked foHkkx ds deZpkjh nedy ds lkFk ?kVukLFky ij vkdj vkx dks cq>k,A rc fnukad 08&02&22 dks ifjoknh us bl ?kVuk dh fyf[kr lqpuk Fkkuk/;{k vuq0 tk0@ t0 tk0 Fkkuk csxqljk; dks gkFkksa gkFk ,oa bZ esy ls rFkk iqfyl v/kh{kd csxqljk; dks bZ esy ls ekuuh; eq[;ea=h fcgkj dks bZ esy] ls uxj Fkkuk/;{k csxqljk; ,oa yksfg;kuxj vks-ih- v/;{k dks okV~lvi ls ,oa fnukad 10-02-22 dks iqfyl egkfuns'kd gksexkMZ dks bZ esy ls vkosnu Hkstdj fn;kA fnukad 11-02-2022 dks djhc 5 cts la/;k vuq0 tk0@ t0 tk0 Fkkuk] csxqljk; ds nkjksxk th Jh izeksn dqekj ?kVukLFky ij vkdj tkap dj ifjoknh ,oa xokgu ls iwNrkN dj okil vk x;s fdUrq vfHk;qDrksa ds esy o izHkko esa vkus ds dkj.k Fkkuk/;{k us vHkh rd izkFkfedh ntZ ugha fd;k vkSj u gh vfHk;qDrksa dks fxjQ~rkj fd;kA vfHk;qDrksa ds Mj ls vkl ikl ds yksx xokgh nsuk ugha pkgrs gSaA vr% Jheku ls izkFkZuk gS fd Fkkuk/;{k vuq0 tk0 @t0 tk0 Fkkuk csxqljk; dks /kkjk 153 ¼3½ na0 iz0 la0 ds vraxZr izkFkfedh ntZ dj vuqla/kku djus dk funsZ'k nsus dh d`ik dh tk,A blds fy, ifjoknh Jheku dk lnk vkHkkjh jgsxkA g0 @& ifjoknh^^ 14. From perusal of aforesaid complaint petition, it appears that land dispute of appellants/accused was not with complainant rather with witness no. 1 namely, Sikandar Sah, son of late Narayan Sah. Complainant admittedly appears to be an employee of witness no. 1 and was sleeping with him on fateful night in ofÏce where mischief by fire alleged to be caused by appellants/accused. The actual aggrieved is witness no. 1, but he did not came forward to lodge the case, rather, he made his employee instrumental prima-facie for the reason that he belongs to scheduled caste’s community, which implies prima-facie malafide intention and oblique motive of witness no. 1. Even from facial perusal of complaint petition, it appears that the complainant is not the eye witness of the real occurrence and also no overt act appears attributed particularly to appellant no. 2 and 3 who are none but the wife and son of appellant no. 1. At this stage, it would be apposite to reproduce para 102 of Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), which are as under: “ 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufÏciently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police ofÏcers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police ofÏcer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufÏcient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efÏcacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 15. Considering the aforesaid factual and legal discussion as the complaint is not supported by afÏdavit, where cognizance order is not appears a reasoned order while taking a different view from final report and, moreover, prima-facie the facial perusal of complaint also not disclosed any offence committed by appellants/accused, rather it appears that complainant made instrumental in the hand of witness no. 1 to lodge this case suggesting oblique motive with malafide intention, accordingly, order taking cognizance dated 29.06.2024 (Annexure ‘6’) as passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Begusarai in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 17 of 2022 is hereby quashed and set-aside qua appellants/accused. 16. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. 17. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith TCR, if any, be returned to learned trial court henceforth.