ORDER : Since all the above three petitions are in respect of the same crime number and since common questions of law and facts are involved in all the above three petitions, they were taken together to dispose of them by this common order in order to avoid repetition of facts as well as the law. 2. The first Criminal Petition No.101422/2017 by petitioner/accused No.2, the next connected petition in Criminal Petition No.101423/2017 is by petitioner/ accused No.3, who is also accused No.4 in the capacity of a Estate Officer and another connected petition in Criminal Petition No.101424/2017 is by petitioner/ accused No.1. The above three petitions are filed by the respective accused persons under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying the Court to quash the proceedings registration of the complaint dated 10.08.2016 and FIR in Crime No.0164/2016 by Town Police Station, Hubli pending on the file of II Addl. District Court, Dharwad, Hubli-Dharwad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (5), 3(1) (15), 3(2) (vii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 166, 167, 200, 321, 403, 503, 504 of I.P.C. 3. Brief facts of the case of the respondent No.2/complainant, one Shivashankarappa Krishnappa Bhandari is the complainant in this case, wherein he has stated that he is staying in the address along with his family members and he is the Chairman of Harijan Hithavardhaka Sangha and the complainant having the office of the Sangha at Rajagopal Nagar, Station Road, Hubli. At Rajagopal Nagar, Hubli Station Road, CTS No.2384 to 2814, 4 acres of the landed property is the private landed property and on 01.10.1977 it was declared as the slum area, wherein 120 families were staying in the huts in the said slum area. The people who are staying in the said huts belongs to Madiga community and they are all scheduled caste people. Though it was within the knowledge that the people who were staying in the Rajagopala Nagar at Station Road are belonging to scheduled caste, on 11.06.2006 the accused No.1 to 4 as mentioned in this case they have demolished all the 120 huts in CTS 2384 to 2814. This is an intentional act on the part of the accused and the scheduled caste people were staying in those huts since more than 100 years by putting the huts. This is an intentional act on the part of the accused and the scheduled caste people were staying in those huts since more than 100 years by putting the huts. In the said area the Harijan Sangha is also running the school for the benefit of the children of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe people and the railway people by issuing the notice often asking to vacate even the said school also from the said premises. On 09.01.2016 the people belonging to Railway Department brought the JCB vehicle and there were houses which were already demolished in station road CTS No.2384 to 2814, but without doing anything they went back. In the complaint, it is mentioned the names of some of the persons who are staying in the said area from which they were already vacated, such names are from 1 to 120 as mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, the complainant requested as accused No.1 to 4 have committed the said offence and the complainant did not know the name of such person and mentioned only the designation to take action against them for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (5), 3(1) (15), 3(2) (vii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 166, 167, 200, 321, 403, 503, 504 of I.P.C. On the basis of the said complaint case came to be registered against accused No.1 to 4. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for petitioners/accused No.1 to 4, so also the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant and the argument of the learned High Court Government Pleader in respect of respondent No.1/State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners during the course of his argument made the submission that even looking to the complaint averments, there is no prima facie case made out by the complainant. He himself has mentioned in the complaint that on the said day the people belonging to the Railway Department brought the JCB vehicle and they were already demolished houses and after issuing the same they went back. Hence, the learned counsel made the submission this itself clearly goes to show the initiation of the proceedings with a malafide intention to wreak vengeance as against the accused persons who are officers of the Railway Department. Hence, the learned counsel made the submission this itself clearly goes to show the initiation of the proceedings with a malafide intention to wreak vengeance as against the accused persons who are officers of the Railway Department. He also made the submission that the accused persons being the public servants the prior permission under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. was not at all obtained before registration and initiation of the said proceedings. Hence, he submitted that on this ground also the proceedings are liable to be quashed. It is further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused in respect of all the three petitions that proceedings are initiated against the said Harijana Hithavardhaka Sangha under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. He made the submission that the proceedings were initiated in Miscellaneous Appeal No.29/2008 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad. While disposing of the said matter in the said M.A.No.29/2008, the Court allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant-Harijan Hithavardhaka Sangha and the impugned order passed by the Railway Department came to be set aside, but also granted liberty to the Railway Department to initiate the proceedings against the said Harijan Hithavardhaka Sangha as provided under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, after following due procedure. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that in view of the liberty granted by the Court, the Divisional Engineer/Headquarters/UBL Railway Department, issued a ‘Termination Notice’ dated 19.10.2015, to the Chairman of the Harijan Hithavardhaka Sangha, Rajagopal Nagar, Hubballi. He also made the submission that again the Harijan Hithavardhaka Sangha preferred an appeal in M.A. No.1/2016 and the said appeal was also dismissed. The learned counsel made the submission that when the action was taken by invoking the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, respondent No.2 made a false complaint to counter the same and with an intention not to vacate the premises. Hence, the learned counsel made the submission that looking to the entire materials, the petitioners herein have not at all committed any of the alleged offences; false allegations mare made regarding the alleged demolition; the residents of the said area have already initiated writ proceedings which is pending before this Court and no stay has been granted in the said writ proceedings. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that initiation of such proceedings is a clear abuse of the process of the Court and therefore, he submitted to allow all the three petitions and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-complainant made the submission that the families of the scheduled caste people are staying in the said area for more than 100 years by putting huts. It is also his contention that the said area was declared as a slum by the Government of Karnataka. The further contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the said area is not under the ownership of the Railway Department, but it is a slum area as declared by the Government of Karnataka and, unless and until, the said area is acquired by the District Administration for the purpose of allotting it to the Railway Department, the Railway Department cannot have any right over the said area. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that it is only with the consent of the Railway Officers themselves, the Harijan Hithavardhaka Sangha is running a school in the said area since long and the children of the families of scheduled caste people, who are staying in the said area, are studying in the said school. Hence, he made the submission that without taking any legal steps, by bringing the JCB vehicles, the houses of the residents of the area were demolished and that complaints were lodged before the police, but the police did not take any action at the initial stage. Learned counsel further made the submission that when the police did not register the case at the earliest, the Harijan Hithavardhaka Sangha approached this Court by filing a petition and when the notice was issued by this Court, then the police have registered the case. He also made the submission that sofar as obtaining sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, it cannot be made applicable; it is only the Commissioner who is to be treated as a ‘Public Servant’ as defined under Section 8 of the Railways Act, within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code; sofar as the petitioners herein are concerned, they cannot be treated as public servants, who were working in the Railway Board. Apart from that, he also made the submission that obtaining permission at the beginning itself does not arise at all and, in this connection, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2005)8 SCC 202 in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Another vs. Union of India and Another. The head note at ‘F’ reads as under: “F. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S. 197 – Applicability – Scope of protection under – Invocation of protection under – Prerequisite for – Stage at which attracted – Preliminary enquiry by court as to applicability of S.197 – Held, said protection is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act – Therefore the concept of S.197 does not get immediately attracted on institution of the complaint case – Test to determine the reasonable connection between the act complained of and the official duty, restated.” Hence, it is the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant that only on the ground that such permission was not obtained under Section 197 Cr.P.C., the proceedings cannot be quashed by the Court. Learned counsel also submitted that, apart from that, the matters are at initial stage; investigation is not completed; because of the orders passed by this Court, the further investigation is stalled; and that after completion of the investigation and filing of the final report, the petitioners can approach this Court and not at this initial stage. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that there is no merit in all the three petitions and the same are to be rejected. 7. The learned High Court Government Pleader representing the State also made the submission that the matters are at the initial stage and that further investigation of the matter is stalled by the order of this Court. Hence, he too submitted that at this stage the petitioners are not entitled for quashing of the criminal proceedings against them. Hence, he also submitted to reject the petitions. 8. Hence, he too submitted that at this stage the petitioners are not entitled for quashing of the criminal proceedings against them. Hence, he also submitted to reject the petitions. 8. I have perused the grounds in all the three petitions, the contents of the complaint, FIR and also perused the documents produced by the petitioners in support of their contentions i.e., the proceedings initiated under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and so also the proceedings in Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.29/2008 and 1/2016. 9. Looking to the contentions of the complainant in the complaint, since long the persons belonging to scheduled caste (Madiga community) are staying in the said area, which was declared as slum. It is the contention of the complainant herein that with an intention to get evicted the persons residing in the said area, the petitioners herein had brought JCB and got the houses demolished. It is also the contention that only with prior permission of the railway authorities, the respondent-Harijan Hithavardhaka Sangha is running a school for the benefit of the children of the people who are staying in the said area. These are the allegations as against the present petitioners. 10. I have perused the two orders passed in M.A. No.29/2008 and M.A.No.1/2016. The appellant therein i.e., the Harijan Hithavardhaka Sangha preferred an appeal in M.A. No.29/2008 and perusing the order passed in the said appeal, it came to be allowed and the order impugned therein passed by the Estate Officer, Additional Divisional Railway Manager, South-Western Railways, Hubballi, was set aside. Subsequently, the Divisional Engineer/Headquarters/UBL, issued the termination notice dated 19.10.2015 addressing to the Chairman of Harijan Hithavardhaka Sangha, Hubballi. The Harijan Hithavardhaka Sangha once again initiated the proceedings in Miscellaneous Appeal No.1/2016 challenging the issuance of termination notice dated 19.10.2015 and its correctness and validity. However, the said M.A.No.1/2016 came to be dismissed. Looking to these two documents produced in the case, there are factual disputes in between the two parties. 11. It is also brought to the notice of this Court and also pleaded in the proceedings that writ proceeding are initiated before this Court claiming compensation for the illegal demolition of the houses and the said writ proceedings are pending before this Court. 11. It is also brought to the notice of this Court and also pleaded in the proceedings that writ proceeding are initiated before this Court claiming compensation for the illegal demolition of the houses and the said writ proceedings are pending before this Court. When the proceedings are initiated on the civil side as well as criminal side; where only the FIR is registered and the investigation is not yet completed; and when because of the order passed by this Court, the further investigation of the case is stalled, it is difficult for this Court to take a decision in the matter that the case of the complainant is either false or groundless. It is only after the Investigating Officer places the investigating material collected during investigation and filing of the final report before the Court, the Court can take a decision in the matter. Therefore, at this stage, I am of the opinion that it is not proper for this Court to pass any order only on the basis of registration of the FIR. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners herein to approach this Court after completion of the investigation and filing of the final report. With this observation, for the present, all the three petitions are hereby rejected.