Order This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.3.2009 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh passed in Complaint Case No. 1201 of 2008 corresponding to T.R. No. 1166 of 2009, whereby he took cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 448 & 504 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3(iv), (viii), (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. It appears that the complainant/opposite party no. 2 has filed a written report before the Officer-in-charge of Harijan Police Station, Muffasil Hazaribagh alleging therein that on 8th of January, 2008 petitioners' came to his house 'and utter that complainant belongs to 'dome' community and his work is to clean drainage. It is also alleged that the petitioners insulted the statue of Ambedkar installed in the field and threatened that they will break it. On the basis of aforesaid written report Sadar P.S. Case No.2 of 2008 instituted and police took up investigation. 3. It appears that after investigation, police submitted final form, which was accepted by the court on 4.8.2008. However, before the acceptance of the said final form, opposite party no. 2 filed a protest petition, which was treated as complaint and accordingly complaint Case No. 1201 of 2008 instituted. Thereafter, complainant's statement recorded on oath. During inquiry, some witnesses also examined. After the said inquiry, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh took cognizance of the offences as stated above vide his order dated 17.3.2009 which is impugned in this application. 4. It is submitted by Sri S8.meer Saurav that the present petition has been filed by the complainant with an intention to take vengeance from the petitioners, because the complainant/opposite party no. 2 had failed to get any relief in suits filed by his father. He submits that in aforesaid suits decree passed in favour of petitioners, which were confirmed up to Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also submitted that earlier complainant filed case against the father of the petitioners, .under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in which petitioners' father has been acquitted. It is further submitted that even from perusal of F.I.R., complaint petition and S.A. of complainant, no offence under Sections 448 & 504 of the I.P.C. & Sections 3(iv), 3(viii) & 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out. It is further submitted that even from perusal of F.I.R., complaint petition and S.A. of complainant, no offence under Sections 448 & 504 of the I.P.C. & Sections 3(iv), 3(viii) & 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out. Accordingly, it is submitted that learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, without assigning any reason as to how the said offences are made out, has passed the impugned order, thus, same cannot be sustained. 5. On the other hand, Sri Gautam Kumar appearing for the opposite party no. 2 submits that from perusal of F.I.R., statement of complainant on SA and statement of witnesses, offences under Section 3(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is made out, thus the court below rightly took cognizance against the petitioners. Accordingly, the present application is liable to be rejected. 6. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. From perusal of Annexures-6, 7 & 7/1, it appears that there is a land dispute between the parties and the complainant's father Sundar Ram Rawat has lost the case in the High Court on 2/3 occasions. It is further stated in the present application that the complainant's father had went to Supreme Court against the order of the High Court which he lost. It further appears from Annexure-8 that in between complainant's father and petitioners a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated, which was decided in favour of petitioners. It then appears from Annexure-9 that father of complainant had filed a case against father of petitioners under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, which resulted in his acquittal. Thus, it is clear that the relations of the complainants with the petitioners are strained and inimical from before. 7. It is stated in the F.I.R. that the accused persons came to the house of complainant on 8.1.2008 and abused him, but the complainant while examining himself on SA had stated that the said occurrence took place on 9.1.2008. Thus, there is material contradiction with regard to the date of occurrence. It further appears from the F.I.R. and SA that all the occurrence took place inside the house of complainant. 8. Thus, there is material contradiction with regard to the date of occurrence. It further appears from the F.I.R. and SA that all the occurrence took place inside the house of complainant. 8. As per Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it is necessary that the utterances of insult, intimidation and/or humiliation to a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe be made in public view. Since the occurrence took place inside the house, thus, in my opinion that is not within the view of public at large, as they have no free access to that place. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also taking into account that there was a land dispute between the parties, which petitioners succeeded up to the Supreme Court, I am of the view that present case has been filed with' a view to take vengeance from the petitioners. Thus, the same come within the four corners of the law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604. 10. Accordingly, I allow this application and quash the impugned order dated 17.3.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 1201 of 2008 corresponding to T.R. No. 1166 of 2009 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagti.