JUDGMENT : Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.205/2012 of Peramangalam Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, for short S.C & ST (PA) Act. That crime was registered on a complaint by the second respondent, a member of a Schedule Caste, alleging that the petitioner had blocked a Panchayath road which has been enjoyed by her as of right. Annexure AII is the copy of her complaint on which the crime was registered. Even a cursory reading of that complaint would indicate that no offence under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the S.C & ST (PA) Act is made out as the essential ingredients to constitute such offence are not borne out by the allegations set out in that complaint, is the case of the petitioner for quashing Annexure AI F.I.R. registered over the crime. Section 3(1)(xiv) of the aforesaid Act reads thus: "(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- ............ (xiv) denies a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe any customary right of passage to a place of public resort or obstructs such member so as to prevent him from using or having access to a place of public resort to which other members of public or any section thereof have a right to use or access to". What has been made as an atrocity against a member of a Schedule Caste under the above provision in the Act is an obstruction caused to him denying any customary right of passage, or prevention from using or having access to a place of public resort, to which other members of public or any section thereof have a right to use or access to. Other than setting forth an allegation that a Panchayath road has been blocked by some acts done by the petitioner, after committing trespass over that road, nothing more is spelt out that such obstruction or prevention over the use of that pathway has any nexus to any public resort. Other than setting forth an allegation that a Panchayath road has been blocked by some acts done by the petitioner, after committing trespass over that road, nothing more is spelt out that such obstruction or prevention over the use of that pathway has any nexus to any public resort. Though the learned counsel for the second respondent would contend that Panchayath road led to a public road in Annexure AII complaint that is not spelt out, and even if that be so, that may not be sufficient to satisfy the offence of atrocity covered under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Act in denying access to a public resort, to which other members of public or any section have a right to use or access. So essentially the obstruction or prevention must show that it interferes with the right of a member of a Schedule Caste to have access to a public resort to which other members of the public or any section thereof have a right to use or access to. Where the complaint is conspicuously absent with regard to obstruction from using or access to a public resort, merely on the obstruction alleged to have been caused over the Panchayath way, I find Annexure AI F.I.R. registered for the offence under Section 3(1) (xiv) of the S.C & S.T. (PA) Act cannot be sustained. In that view of the matter Annexure AI F.I.R. registered against the petitioner is quashed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Crl. M.C. is disposed of.