ORDER U.L. Bhat, C.J.--1. Second petitioner is the wife of first petitioner. They reside at Ambikapur. First petitioner is a practicing Advocate at Ambikapur. First petitioner also claims to be a social and political activist. First petitioner and his son filed a writ petition M.P. No. 2895/92 in this Court against the District Collector, the third respondent herein and others alleging that the third respondent, Additional Collector of the district, without any jurisdiction started enquiry against the second petitioner in regard to a matter which was outside his jurisdiction. This Court also passed an interim order staying the enquiry. Thereupon, the third respondent made a report to the fourth respondent, officer-incharge of Harijan Kalyan Prakoshtha, Ambikapur alleging that he is a member of the scheduled caste and the act of filing the writ petition against him would be an offence under Sec. 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'). The complaint was not only against the first petitioner but also against his wife though she was not a party to the writ petition. Annexure-B is a copy of the complaint. On the basis of this complaint, the fourth respondent registered a case against the petitioners under section 3 (1) (viii) of the Act. A news item about registration of the case was published in news-papers. The petitioners apprehended their arrest for the offence on the basis of the F.I.R. They have filed a writ petition challenging the vires of sections 3, 8, 14, 19 and 22 of the Act seeking a direction to the respondents not to arrest them. 2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, we do not think we are called upon to decide the constitutionality of the provisions of the Act in this case since registration of the case against the petitioners appears to be a clear case of abuse of the process of criminal law. 3. 3. Section 3 (1) (viii) of the Act reads thus: "Whoever, not being a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe institutes false, malicious or vexatious suitor criminal or other legal proceedings against a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe.....................shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine." 4. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 evidently were under the belief that the moment a person files a case against the member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe which appears to the complainant or the officer registering the case to be a false, malicious or vaxatious, a case can be registered under the provisions of the Act and action taken. We may mention in passing that Sec. 18 of the Act has taken away the application of section 438 Cr.P.C. to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act. Section 19 takes away the applicability of section 360 of the Code and the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to persons above the age of eighteen years who are found guilty of having committed an offence under this Act. We wish to emphasize that the consequences of registration of a case under this Act are far more severe than the consequences of registration of a case under the Indian Penal Code. 5. The provisions of the Act, in particular of section 3 (1) (viii) are intended to protect persons belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes from harassment by false, malicious or vaxatious litigation. An offence can be registered only after the Court dealing with the suit or criminal or other proceedings which is alleged to be false, malicious or vexatious is disposed of. Registration of a case during the pendency of such a proceeding would amount to pre-judging the issue which the civil or criminal Court in such proceeding may be called upon to decide. Prosecution of a plaintiff or a petitioner or a complainant would naturally have a tendency of preventing people from approaching Court of law for redressal of grievances. If a private individual tries to prevent any person from approaching a Court of law, that may, depending on the circumstances of the case, amount to contempt of Court. Prosecution of a plaintiff or a petitioner or a complainant would naturally have a tendency of preventing people from approaching Court of law for redressal of grievances. If a private individual tries to prevent any person from approaching a Court of law, that may, depending on the circumstances of the case, amount to contempt of Court. We are, therefore, satisfied that the legisaltive intend in enacting section 3 (1) (viii) of the Act is not to enable registration of a crime on a mere filing of a suit or criminal or other proceeding against a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and without waiting for the disposal of the suit or such other proceeding. If the suitor the other proceeding is decided against the person belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, certainly there is no offence committed. Even if the proceeding is dismissed, it would be possible for the person who filed the proceedings to contend that the proceeding was not either false or malicious or vexatious. A case cannot be registered merely on basis of filing of a suit or criminal or other legal proceedings. Whether an offence has been committed or not can be decided only after the proceeding is over. 6. Therefore, the third respondent was not justified in filing the complaint at that stage before the fourth respondent about the writ petition filed in this Court. The fourth respondent was expected to examine the averments as well as the provisions of the Act to see whether an offence could be registered at that stage. Had he only applied his mind, he would have realised that no case could be registered till the disposal of the writ petition. In these circumstances, we are inclined to quash the F.I.R. In this view, it is not necessary for us to go into the vires of the provisions of the Act which are challenged in this writ petition. 7. We quash the F.I.R. in Crime No. 620/92 registered by the fourth respondent, officer-in-charge of Harijan Kalyan Prakostha, Ambikapur, Sarguja. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without costs. The security amount, if deposited, shall be refunded to the petitioners.