JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent - State. I have carefully perused the FIR. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on plain reading of the FIR, prima facie it does not show any ingredients of any offence committed under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. He further submits that under the said Act, the entire family of the petitioners have been dragged and implicated therein, though the allegations are not sufficient to specifically implicate them. In this background, it is just and necessary to look into the FIR averments to ascertain the above said aspect. 3. A person by name Rajashekhar resident of Ambale village has lodged a complaint before the Mahila Police Station, Tumkur. He has categorically stated that, A.R. Kavya was his elder daughter and that, when she was studying, Accused No.1 A.P. Girish fell in love with that girl and in spite of their best advice, they did not heed to the request of anybody and they left the house in the year 2000 and in this regard, a police complaint was also lodged. Thereafter, on 20.08.2017, they came back and got married themselves in a temple and they also got registered their marriage in the Sub-Registrar's Office at Chikkamagalur. 4. In this context, it is said that the family members of Girish were not liking the said Kavya as she belong to Adi-karnataka community, whereas the petitioners and others belong to Kuruba community. In this background, it is alleged that all the family members started provoking and also instigating the said Girish to ill-treat and harass the said girl in order to throw her out from the matrimonial home and it is also stated that she was actually thrown out from the matrimonial home, though they were having knowledge that she was pregnant. 5. Further, it is stated in the FIR that all the persons started abusing her with reference to her caste as she belong to SC and ill-treated and harassed her, by instigating the accused Girish to throw her out. Further, it is alleged that, on 5.9.2017 in the night hour, the said girl telephoned to her father, the complainant stating that she could not tolerate the ill-treatment and harassment, and therefore, she cannot say that she could survive or not in the said house. Further, it is alleged that, on 5.9.2017 in the night hour, the said girl telephoned to her father, the complainant stating that she could not tolerate the ill-treatment and harassment, and therefore, she cannot say that she could survive or not in the said house. By saying so, she disconnected the phone call and thereafter, the complainant came to know that she has committed suicide in the house of the Accused (Petitioners). 6. On careful perusal of the relevant provisions, of course, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it creates some doubt as to whether those incidents have happened in the public view or not. Nevertheless, the incident as narrated occurred in the public view or not is not specifically stated and therefore, it has to be thrashed out during the course of full dressed investigation. 7. Even according to the act, as submitted by the learned HCGP for the State, the intention need not be necessary but knowledge of victim belongs to SC community itself is sufficient. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the FIR discloses certain aspects, which attract certain provisions. The Police have to investigate whether the provisions would attract or not, during the course of investigation so as to file appropriate report to the court. The First Information report itself cannot be an encyclopedia to come to a definite conclusion at this stage. Under the above circumstances, I do not find any strong reasons to quash the FIR itself at this stage. Hence, the petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed.