Judgment ( 1 ) THIS is a petition by original accused in Criminal Case No. 28 of 2001 pending before the Special Judge, Bhandara. The petitioner has moved for quashing of the proceedings. ( 2 ) THE proceedings are commenced on the basis of the written complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2 on 25-4-1999 at about 10 p. m. The allegation contained in the report which has led to the registering the FIR and filing of charge-sheet can be read from annexure-3 to the return which is a xerox copy thereof. It is narrated in the complaint that the complainant is a teacher employed in navodaya High School at village Keshori from 1-7-1981 and is working as a Supervisor since 1-9-1995. ( 3 ) ACCORDING the complainant, he came to know that the Head Master demanded a sum of Rs. 300/- for releasing of the cheque towards Scholarship to R. B. Karekar a student of 11th standard and told the student that if he does not have money, he may take away a cheque and pay a sum of Rs. 300/- after encashment. According to the complainant, the said student told him in presence of Shri. P. S. Borkar that the conduct of the Head master was wrong and that he was always behind SC and ST students. According to the complainant, his having come to know about the incident of demand from the student, he went to meet the accused on this point. According to the complaint when he went in the Office of the Head Master i. e. the accused on 24-4-1999 at about 10. 30 a. m. the accused addressed the complainant saying that:according to the complainant, by said language the accused abused the complainant after his caste, asked the peon to remove the designation board affixed at the chair of the complainant and to throw away his chair, and asked the complainant to get out etc. ( 4 ) THEREUPON, the complainant submitted written complaint which is at page 43 Annexure-3 to return of the Respondent no. 2. Thereon, the Police recorded FIR on 25-4-1999 at 10 p. m. under section 3 (l) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w section 7 (l) (d) of Protection of Civil Rights act. 2. Thereon, the Police recorded FIR on 25-4-1999 at 10 p. m. under section 3 (l) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w section 7 (l) (d) of Protection of Civil Rights act. ( 5 ) DURING the investigation, police recorded various statements and found that at no point of time, the accused ever abused the complainant after his caste "mahar". All that was revealed by the witnesses was that the accused was told to get out of the room of the head Master and that the accused directed removal of the chair of the Supervisor there from. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner though the police had found that the imputation answering the contents of offence under 3 (l) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as well as Protection of Civil Rights Act was not made out, still Officers being under the fear and apprehension of being prosecuted on the ground of laxity in the investigation preferred to play safe and have filed charge-sheet. ( 7 ) THE petition is opposed by State as well as the complainant. In the return filed by the State, it is very specifically contended in para 4 that the accused addressed the complainant when called in the office of accused and uttered the words namely "tumhi sale Mahar Jatiche Lokach Halkat Ahat" and thereafter, asked him to get out. The objection is also based on the ground of limitation of exercise of inherent jurisdiction. ( 8 ) THE complainant has opposed the petition by his affidavit saying that the accused has caused humiliation of the petitioner. He admits that there was altercation between him and the petitioner and the act of the accused in issuing commands to the peon for removal of the chair etc. , but constitutes offence under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. According to him though the respondent no. 1 had mentioned in the remand papers that no offence was made out against the accused persons, such statements need to be ignored. ( 9 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner formulated his submission in support of his claim which can be summarized as follows. According to him though the respondent no. 1 had mentioned in the remand papers that no offence was made out against the accused persons, such statements need to be ignored. ( 9 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner formulated his submission in support of his claim which can be summarized as follows. (a) That the hot discussion and altercation of the words which had occurred between the complainant and the accused was as if in camera, it being in the chamber of the head Master and it was not open to public view; (b) The complaint does not reveal a statement that the complainant belongs to scheduled Castes and that he is "mahar"; (c) The complainant does not contain an allegation that the accused used whatever words used by him with intention to insult or humiliate the complainant on account of his caste; (d) The complaint does not contain any imputation of practice of untouchability. (e) Upon looking into the statements of the witnesses, and accepting those to be prima facie true, and without falling into any interpretation thereof or any disbelief in relation thereto, no offence is made out and, therefore, the prosecution deserves to be quashed. ( 10 ) THE learned Advocate placed reliance on the following Judgments. (A) How an offence under the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989 ought to be complained and spell out in charge-sheet. (1) 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 219, Bai @ laxmibai w/o Nivrutti Poul and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra. (2) 2003 (3) Mh. L J. 62 : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 207], Alka A. Mishra Vs. J. P. Shoke and others. (3) 1998 (1) Crimes 257, Dhanpal Jain vs. State of Rajasthan and another. (4) 1994 Cri. L. J. 2150, Bombay High court, Sukhdeo Vs. State. (5) 1991 Cri. L. J. 2954 (M. P.), Phulsing vs. State of M. P. (6) 2000 (1) Crimes 529, Mohan choudhari Vs. State of Bihar. (7) 1999 (2) Mh. L J. 743: [1999 ALL MR (Cri) 839], Ramnath Sadashiv Vs. State of Maharashtra. (B) In what circumstances jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. can be exercised by this Court. (1) AIR 1998 SC Page 128 : [1998 ALL mr (Cri) 144 (S. C.)], M/s. Pepsi Food ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial magistrate and others. (2) 1998 (Vol. 7) SCC 698, Ashok chaturvedi and others Vs. State of Maharashtra. (B) In what circumstances jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. can be exercised by this Court. (1) AIR 1998 SC Page 128 : [1998 ALL mr (Cri) 144 (S. C.)], M/s. Pepsi Food ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial magistrate and others. (2) 1998 (Vol. 7) SCC 698, Ashok chaturvedi and others Vs. Shital H. Chanani and another. (3) 2001 (1) Crimes 196 SC : 2002 SCC 504 : [2000 ALL MR (Cri) (S. C.) 1072], Gangula Ashok and another Vs. State of A. P. (4) (2004)4 Supreme Court Cases 231m. A. S. Kuttappan Vs. E. Kaishnan nayanar and another. (5) (2005)2 Supreme Court Cases 659 : [2005 ALL MR (Cri) 1288 (S. C.)], netai Dutta Vs. State of W. B. (6) (2005)1 Supreme Court Cases 122 : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3462 (S. C.)], zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and another. ( 11 ) THESE Judgments quoted in heading 'a' in above para are relied upon by the learned Advocate for the applicant in support of his plea that unless it is demonstrated from the complaint and the statement of the witnesses that :- (I) the accused belonged to Scheduled caste and was so stated in the complaint; (ii) that the complaint does not contain a statement that the imputations complained of attribute intention against the accused of committing act as contemplated by Section 3 (l) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; (iii) No offence whatsoever is made out to complain that the acts are intended to practise untouchability; (iv) for attracting section 3 (1 ) (x) of scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, there should be allegation of intentional insult to the member of Scheduled Caste etc. (v) the imputations contained in the complaint and statements contained in oral evidence collected must spell out prima facie commission of offence. ( 12 ) THE citations listed in heading 'b' in para 10 are relied upon by the applicant in order to substantiate a plea how the power is exercised by the High Court for quashing the proceedings inter alia how could this be quashed and set aside including those under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This aspect need not be discussed being a matter of well settled position of law. This aspect need not be discussed being a matter of well settled position of law. ( 13 ) UPON examination of the submissions and the case papers, and guaging them in parameters of various reported precedents noted in heading 'a' in para 10, it is seen on what is shown from complaint and evidence recorded by police, on its face, and without any disbelief as to what the imputations do reveal that actions of the accused complained of were (i) not an a public view, (ii) not done with in intention to insult a person belonging to Scheduled Castes, (iii) nor does it reveal practice of untouchability. ( 14 ) IT is further clear that the witnesses who are cited and in particular annexure-1 to the return of the respondents also reveals that abusing by use of utterances of word "mahar" was not done. ( 15 ) IT is required to be noted that every quarrel or altercation between the member of the Higher caste and that of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes would not ipso facto constitute acts of commission of offence which are capable of cognizance under the scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) and Protection of Civil Rights Act as the case be. If the imputations are grossly vague and perfunctory, it would be appropriate to quash the proceedings being abuse of process of Law and Courts. Moreover particularly even when the complaint may technically answer the ingredients of offence sought to be complained of, but the evidence be so perfunctory to raise prima facie case for trial, the proceedings deserve to be quashed, as is the ratio in Zandu pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. , case supra item (6) in heading 'b'. ( 16 ) THEREFORE, this Court is satisfied that the contents of the complaint lodged by the respondent no. 1 and the offence registered by the Police in respect thereof and the charge- sheet which is filed by police do not answer to the description of commission of offence under 3 (1 ) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 and under Section 7 (1 ) (d) of Protection of Civil rights Act. Continuing such proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law, courts and justice. Continuing such proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law, courts and justice. ( 17 ) IN the result, this Court finds that the petitioner has made out a case for quashing of Special Criminal Case No. 28 of 2001 pending before the Special Judge, Bhandara. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i ). Application allowed.