Judgment Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. The prayer made in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) is for quashing of complaint dated August 17, 2005 filed under Sections 427, 436, 506 IPC and under Section 3 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act) by respondent No. 2 against petitioner and the summoning order dated December 08, 2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhari. 2. Briefly the facts are that respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioner under Sections 427, 436, 506 IPC and under Section 3 of Act with the allegations that he is permanent resident of village Balachaur, Tehsil Jagadhari. He belongs to Harijan caste (Chamar) whereas petitioner belongs to upper caste. The complainant is having agricultural land adjacent to the land of the petitioner. In the last week of March, 2005 in the morning when complainant went to his fields, he was stunned to see that his trees were totally burnt and there was sign of fire under the trees and in the nearby area. On enquiry, he did not come to know about the truth but complainant continued his efforts and it was only in the first week of May, 2005 that one Roshan Lal son of Dhani Ram told the complainant that in the evening of March 23, 2005, the petitioner was burning the dry leaves of sugarcane in his fields adjacent to the fields of the complainant and with a view to harm the complainant, he allowed the said fire spread in the fields of the complainant. Application was filed before the SHO, Police Station, Chhachrauli but no action was taken. The same fate was to the application filed before the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar. It is further alleged in the complaint that on August 1, 2005 at about 5.00 P.M., petitioner met the complainant in the fields. The complainant asked the petitioner as to why he had burnt his trees. It is alleged that on this petitioner started abusing the complainant while catching hold of him. On the hue and cry raised by complainant, Roshan Lal son of Dhani Ram resident of village Balachaur and Suraj Bhan son of Phaggu Ram, resident of village Panjeton reached at the scene and saved the complainant. It is alleged that on this petitioner started abusing the complainant while catching hold of him. On the hue and cry raised by complainant, Roshan Lal son of Dhani Ram resident of village Balachaur and Suraj Bhan son of Phaggu Ram, resident of village Panjeton reached at the scene and saved the complainant. It is further alleged that petitioner abused the complainant by his caste while saying Behan Chod Chamar Ke, how you dare me to ask me about this incident While leaving the place, the petitioner is alleged to have threatened the complainant of finishing his entire family and also put his house on fire in case any action is taken by him. On complaint to the police, no action was taken and resultantly the complaint was filed. 3. In the complaint, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagdhari had summoned the petitioner to face trial under Section 435 IPC and Section 3 of the Act vide order dated December 8, 2005. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaint filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner is nothing else but an abuse of process of law just with a view to pressurise the petitioner. The civil litigation was pending between the parties as petitioner had filed a suit in 2001 for mandatory injunction directing respondent No. 2 to refrain from causing harm to the trees already existing on the land of the petitioner abutting that of respondent No. 2 and for permanent injunction restraining him from interfering in the possession of the land. Learned Civil Court directed the appointment of Field Kanungo as a Local Commissioner for demarcation of the land in dispute, report of which was ultimately found to be in favour of the petitioner and the matter was settled in the Lok Adalat on September 03, 2005. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2 is in habit of levelling false allegations against various persons by misusing the provisions of the Act. Earlier he had filed a complaint against one Sampuran Singh son of Kesho Ram, Chief Accountant, H.V.P.N. Chhachrauli under Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 with the allegations that said Sampuran Singh had uttered filthy and unparliamentary language against the complainant. Earlier he had filed a complaint against one Sampuran Singh son of Kesho Ram, Chief Accountant, H.V.P.N. Chhachrauli under Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 with the allegations that said Sampuran Singh had uttered filthy and unparliamentary language against the complainant. Petitioner has also placed on record a communication by SHO, Police Station City, Jagdhari referring to complaints filed by respondent No. 2 wherein after due investigation and also referring to his earlier conduct showing him to be in habit of making false complaints against various persons he even recommended proceedings under Section 182 of the Code against respondent No. 2. Still further the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even on a plain reading of FIR in question, no offence under Section 435 IPC and Section 3 of the Act is made out. The continuance of prosecution against the petitioner would be nothing else but abuse of process of law. The conduct of the petitioner shows that he is in habit of filing complaints against various persons, which ultimately were found to be false. He further submitted that there were no allegation in the complaint that petitioner is in knowledge of the fact that respondent No. 2 is a scheduled caste and in the absence thereof, the complaint itself was not maintainable. The witnesses projected in the complainant are planted ones and it is simply a concocted version with no legs to stand. Once the trees of the complainant were burnt in the fire on March 23, 2005, what prevented respondent No. 2 to make a complaint to the police immediately thereafter is not born out from the record. He started investigating the case himself as if he was heading some investigating agency. The witness to the alleged occurrence where the complainant was manhandled by the petitioner and uttered some unparliamentary language was the same person, who allegedly informed the complainant about two months after the incident about the fact that petitioner was responsible for the fire in his field. Reliance has been placed upon D.P. Vats v. State and Ors. 2002 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 716, Ram Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand 2005 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 575 and Dr. Satish Kumar Thukral v. Prem 2006 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 491. 5. Reliance has been placed upon D.P. Vats v. State and Ors. 2002 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 716, Ram Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand 2005 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 575 and Dr. Satish Kumar Thukral v. Prem 2006 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 491. 5. Controverting the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the petitioner in the present case had already been summoned and charges have also been framed, which necessarily means that there is prima facie material against the petitioner. Once that is so, the trial of the case should be permitted to continue and this Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction at this stage. On the issues of his previous conduct, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that same will not be relevant for the purpose of decision of the present controversy as each case has to be considered and decided on its own facts. Merely because the earlier complaints filed by respondent No. 2 were found to be false will not mean even the complaint in question is also false. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I find substance in the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner for more than one reason. Admittedly civil litigation was pending between the parties regarding demarcation of the land which according to the petitioner was ultimately decided in his favour after the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court demarcated the land and the matter was ultimately compromised before the Lok Adalat. The compromise was effected on September 03, 2005. The present incident according to respondent No. 2 had taken place way back on March 23, 2005 and as per his own allegations, even the complainant had come to know about the fact that it is the petitioner, who was responsible for the fire in May, 2005 but still he never raised hue and cry about the same and civil litigation between the parties was settled in the Lok Adalat on September 03, 3005. Had there been any such dispute between the parties, respondent No. 2 would not have settled the dispute in Lok Adalat. Had there been any such dispute between the parties, respondent No. 2 would not have settled the dispute in Lok Adalat. In the order passed by the Lok Adalat, it is noticed that parties had made their joint statement before the Court about the compromise in the suit on September 1, 2005 whereas the complaint in question had been filed by respondent No. 2 on August 17, 2005. Meaning thereby that even the respondent No. 2/complainant knew that there was no merit either in the civil litigation or in the complaint filed by him. 7. Further nothing had come on record to show that why respondent No. 2, who is such a vigilant litigant that for small issue he files complaints before the authorities or even before the Courts, one such complaint filed by him against Sampuran Singh under Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 is also on record but inspite of the fact that allegedly his trees were burnt in the fire by the petitioner way back on March 23, 2005 still no complaint was made to any of the authority. Even as per the complainant, admittedly he continued making enquiry from March 24, 2005 till May, 2005 when he was told by Roshan Lal son of Dhani Ram that petitioner was responsible for fire in the fields of the complainant. Even thereafter before the alleged incident of August 1, 2005 there is no material on record to show as to what action was taken by respondent No. 2 for nearly three months. The chance witness to the occurrence on August 1, 2005 is again same person i.e. Roshan Lal son of Dhani Ram, who had informed respondent No. 2 that the fire in his fields was a result of deliberate action of the petitioner. How another person Suraj Bhan resident of village Panjeton, reached in the fields of respondent No. 2 late in the evening is a mystery. 8. Still further there is no allegation in the complaint that the petitioner knew that the respondent No. 2/complainant belongs to scheduled caste. Ingredients of Section 3 of the Act were not satisfied accordingly no offence was made out. In fact the complainant was nourishing grudge against the petitioner because of pendency of civil litigation, which ultimately was decided against him. 9. Ingredients of Section 3 of the Act were not satisfied accordingly no offence was made out. In fact the complainant was nourishing grudge against the petitioner because of pendency of civil litigation, which ultimately was decided against him. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, in my opinion, it is a fit case where this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process of law by permitting prosecution of the petitioner on the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2/Complainant. Accordingly, the Criminal Complaint No. 31 of 17.8.2005 filed by respondent No. 2/ complainant and all proceedings subsequent thereto are quashed.