JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - The Petitioner has filed this application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the "Code") with a prayer to quash the order passed in I.C.C. No. 3 of 1994 in taking cognizance of an offence u/s 3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the "Act") by the learned Special Judge, Cuttack. 2. The brief fact leading to this application is that the present opposite party, who admittedly belongs to a Scheduled Caste community, is the owner of a residential house which was let out to one Jagannath Jena, who was occupying the said house as a monthly tenant initially on a monthly rental of Rs. 60/-, and ultimately rent was increased to Rs. 150/- per month. The present opposite party was residing and working at Bhubaneswar and not coming to Cuttack. Taking advantage of his absence, Jagannath Jena vacated the aforesaid premises and sub-let the same to the present Petitioner without the knowledge and consent of the Opposite party. As the house in question had been occupied by a stranger, i. e. the present Petitioner, who was not authorised to occupy the same since there was no privity of contract between the Petitioner and the opposite party, the present opposite party issued a lawyer's notice to the said Jagannath Jena, who in turn replied that the disputed premises is still under his occupation, though in fact the said house, was occupied by the present Petitioner. Finding no other alternative, the opposite party filed a suit for eviction before the court of learned Subordinate Judge, Cuttack in T.S. No. 26 of 1989, wherein Jagannath Jena and the present Petitioner were arrayed, as Defendants. In the suit the present Petitioner remained ex-parte whereas Jagannath Jena contested the suit. The suit was decreed ex parte against the present Petitioner and was dismissed against Jagannath Jena. As against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the present opposite party filed T.A. No, 11 of 1992 before the learned District Judge, Cuttack. Ultimately as stated by the learned Counsel for the opposite party, the Petitioner filed an application before the trial court to set aside the ex parte decree passed against her in the suit. 3. As against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the present opposite party filed T.A. No, 11 of 1992 before the learned District Judge, Cuttack. Ultimately as stated by the learned Counsel for the opposite party, the Petitioner filed an application before the trial court to set aside the ex parte decree passed against her in the suit. 3. The case of the opposite party is that by the aforesaid act and conduct of the Petitioner, the Petitioner has also committed an offence punishable under the provisions of the Act. The opposite party is a man of 69 years and a member of Scheduled Caste. He has constructed the aforesaid house with his hard-earned money but due to the aforesaid act of the Petitioner, the opposite party was forced to face multiple litigations and has been deprived of staying in his own house. On a complaint being filed, the learned Special Judge took cognizance u/s 3(1)(iv) of the Act against the Petitioner. 4. The case of the Petitioner is that during pendency of the civil proceeding, this complaint petition has been instituted with a motive to harass the Petitioner and the factum of wrongful possession is still pending for adjudication before the competent civil court and determination of the same in a criminal court would amount to pre-emption of a civil proceeding. At this stage, it is profitable to quote the provisions of Section 3( l)(iv) of the Act; which reads thus: 3. Punishments for offences of atrocities (1) Whoever not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a scheduled Tribe. (iv) wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land owned by, or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or gets the land allotted to him transferred. 5. This being the position a conjoint reading of the aforesaid section along with section 20 of the aforesaid Act, would lead to an irresistible conclusion that Section 3(l)(iv) is a penal provision and punishment can be awarded if the offence is committed. So the argument of the Petitioner that the complainant has to await till the civil proceeding is concluded to come to a definite finding as to whether there has been wrongful possession or not absolutely does not hold good. So the argument of the Petitioner that the complainant has to await till the civil proceeding is concluded to come to a definite finding as to whether there has been wrongful possession or not absolutely does not hold good. The civil proceeding in my view cannot decide whether it constituted an offence or not, which, can only be decided in the present proceeding. 6. In the premises aforesaid, I am reluctant to accept the contention of the Petitioner that no offence has been made out against him u/s 3(1)(iv) of the Act. 7. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly dismissed. Crl. misc, case dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed