ORDER : 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the complaint in Crime No.180/2014 of Udupi Town Police Station pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC Court, Udupi for the offence punishable under Section 3 of Protection of Civil Rights Act, and also under Section 504 of IPC. 2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri. A. Keshava Bhat for Sri. S.K.Acharya for petitioner and Smt. Manjula.D. for Sri. L. Srinivasa Babu for respondent No.1 complainant virtually and the learned HCGP Sri. Rohit B.J. for respondent No.2State. 3. The factual matrix of the case in the complaint are that on 15.04.2014, complainant entered the Bhojana Shala for taking afternoon meals at Srikrishana Mutt temple, Udupi, at that time when she had sought for taking the meals, she had been enquired about her caste, place and to which community she belongs and subsequently it is informed that meals would be provided only to the Brahmin people in that area and other community people are not allowed to sit inside the Bhojana Shala. It is further alleged that the petitioner-accused also with an intention to insult has abused. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that though the alleged incident is said to have been occurred on 15.04.2014, the complaint has been got registered after 19 days of the incident on 04.05.2014. It is an after thought complaint after deliberation and discussion only with an intention to humiliate and harass the petitioner-accused. 5. It is his further submission that the provisions of Section 3 of the Act are not attracted. It is his further submission that if any restrictions have been imposed for entering any place of public worship, then there will be violation of Section 3 of the Act and if it is not a public place, then under such circumstances, the said provision is not attracted. 6. It is his further submission that the contents of the complaint clearly goes to show that she has gone to the said Srikrishna Mutt and she has participated in the pooja function and thereafter about 12.45 p.m., she has gone to Bhojana Shala and there the alleged incident has taken place. 6. It is his further submission that the contents of the complaint clearly goes to show that she has gone to the said Srikrishna Mutt and she has participated in the pooja function and thereafter about 12.45 p.m., she has gone to Bhojana Shala and there the alleged incident has taken place. It is further submitted that Bhojana Shala is not the place of worship, as such the provisions of Section 3 of the Act are not attracted. It is his further submission that the provisions of Section 504 of IPC are also not attracted since there was no intention to abuse or to insult the complainant. In the complaint no abusive words used has been stated. In that light, there is no material as against the petitioner-accused so as to proceed with the matter. He further submits that only with oblique motive, the present complaint has been filed and the matter requires consideration at the hands of this Court to interfere and quash the proceedings. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and quash the proceedings. 7. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submits that now only the complaint has been filed, because of the stay imposed by this Court no other investigation has been conducted. If full investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed, full material will be made available to proceed with the matter. It is his further submission that there is a prima facie material as against the petitioner to proceed with the matter and there are no good grounds made out by the petitioner to quash the proceedings. 8. Smt.Manjula.D., learned counsel for respondent No.2 by supporting the arguments of learned HCGP vehemently argued and contended that the contents of the complaint clearly goes to show that the complainant entered Bhojana Shala and was sitting in the row, at that time, the petitioner-accused has insulted and abused the complainant. In that light, the provisions of Section 504 of IPC are squarely applicable. It is also her submission that still the matter requires consideration and in that light, there is no material and as such, if investigation is fully completed, then there will be material as against the petitioner-accused. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition. 9. In that light, the provisions of Section 504 of IPC are squarely applicable. It is also her submission that still the matter requires consideration and in that light, there is no material and as such, if investigation is fully completed, then there will be material as against the petitioner-accused. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition. 9. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 10. It is the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that there is a delay of 19 days in filing the complaint. On perusal of the contents of the complaint, it indicates that the alleged incident has taken place on 15.04.2014 and the complaint was filed on 04.05.2014. In the complaint no reasons have been assigned for the delay in filing the complaint. In the absence of any explanation in the complaint, the said complaint appears to be after deliberation and discussion and the said complaint has been filed only with an oblique motive, with an intention to harass the petitioner-accused. In that light, filing of the complaint itself is nothing but abuse of process of law. 11. Be that as it may. Even as could be seen from the contents of the complaint it has been alleged that she has come to Srikrishna Mutt, Udupi, on 15.04.2014 and she had participated in the pooja and then thereafter, she has gone to the Bhojana Shala to have the annaprasadam and at that time, the alleged incident has taken place. 12. For the sake of brevity, I quote Section 3 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act which reads as under: 3. Punishment for enforcing religious disabilities whoever on the ground of “untouchability” prevents any person (a) from entering any place of public worship which is open to other persons professing the same religion or any section thereof, as such person; or (b) from worshipping or offering prayers or performing any religious service in any place of public worship, or bathing in, or using the waters of, any sacred tank, well, spring or watercourse (river or lake or bathing at any ghat of such tank, watercourse, river or lake) in the same manner and to the same extent as is permissible to the other persons professing the same religion or any section thereof, as such person.’ 13. On close reading of the said Act, to attract the provision, if any person prohibits from entering any place of public worship which is open to other persons professing the same religion or any section thereof, then the provisions of Section 3 of the Act attracts. 14. On perusal of the complaint, no prevention was made for performing pooja. The alleged incident has taken place when complainant entered Bhojana Shala.. Bhojana Shala is not a place of public worship within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. In that light, the basic ingredients of Section 3 of the Act have not been satisfied. When that being the case, continuation of investigation is nothing but abuse of process of law. 15. It is the contention of the complainant-respondent that the provisions to Section 504 of IPC are attracted and the case has to be proceeded as against petitioner-accused. On perusal of the complaint it has not been mention what are the abusive words used at that time. Be that as it may. The said complaint has been filed after 19 days of delay and even no explanation has been given in the complaint to explain the delay caused in filing the complaint. Then under such circumstances, the said complaint appears to be filed with an oblique motive after deliberation and discussion with an intention to harass the petitioner-accused. On that count also, it is liable to be quashed. In the light of the above discussion, the following: ORDER 1. The petition is allowed. 2. The complaint in Crime No.180/2014 of Udupi Town Police Station pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC Court, Udupi, for the offence punishable under Section 3 of Protection of Civil Rights Act and also under Section 504 of IPC are hereby quashed. I.A.No.1/2016 is disposed of.