JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being FIR No.11204025200790 of 2020 registered with Kheda Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘The Atrocity Act’) as well as all the consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof. 2. In the FIR, it is alleged by the complainant that as the complainant had expended all his money for the operation of his father in January, 2019 and was in need of money for his business purposes, he had borrowed hand loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the petitioner, who had asked to return the money within a period of month. The complainant stated that he had gone to repay the money of Rs.3,00,000/- but the petitioner had demanded 10% interest on it and therefore, he told the petitioner that there was no such talks of interest, inspite of that he paid Rs.3,35,000/- to the petitioner. 2.1. Thereafter, it is alleged in the complaint that during the time of Diwali in the year 2019 as he was running business of Amul Parlour, he had asked for Rs.3,00,000/- from the petitioner and had assured to repay the same within a period of ten days. The complainant had negotiated about the interest and it was assured by the petitioner that the petitioner would charge some nominal interest on the money. The complainant stated that as he could not make provision of money, he could not repay the money. The petitioner/accused, thereafter, under misguidance and threat, took Rs.50,000/- by way of interest for the first fifteen days and for the subsequent fifteen days, he again charged him Rs.50,000/- interest and thereafter Rs.25,000/- was charged as interest for the subsequent week. The complainant stated that he had paid Rs.1,50,000/- as interest to the petitioner. The complainant alleged that the petitioner told him that as he was not paying the capital amount as well as interest amount, he would be required to pay penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- and till the period of non payment, he daily would be required to pay Rs.2,000/-. The complainant stated that he had paid Rs.1,50,000/- as interest to the petitioner. The complainant alleged that the petitioner told him that as he was not paying the capital amount as well as interest amount, he would be required to pay penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- and till the period of non payment, he daily would be required to pay Rs.2,000/-. It is also alleged by the complainant that the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which was borrowed during the time of his father’s operation though was repaid, the petitioner countered that the said amount has not been repaid, therefore, the petitioner was charging him additional Rs.2,000/- per day and had informed the complainant that daily he would be required to pay Rs.4,000/-. It is stated by the complainant that from the period between 14/10/2019 to 20/03/2020, the petitioner had collected about Rs.6,32,000/- charging him daily interest of Rs.4,000/-. 2.2. The allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that prior to the lock down in the month of February, 2019, when the complainant was going towards his shop from his home in his Volkswagen Vento Car with registration no.GJ-1-KJ-2071, at that time, present petitioner was standing near his house near bus stand stopped him and told him that since he was not paying the money, he was taking his vehicle and asked him to relieve the same by paying the money. The complainant alleges that by using abusive words, the petitioner forcibly took away his car and parked it in his compound. The complainant stated that he did not utter a word and traveled to his shop by bus. After about a fortnight, he went to the house of the petitioner and asked for the vehicle. The complainant even told the petitioner that if he is not willing to return the vehicle, then he may pay the money for the same. The complainant alleged that the petitioner told him that he would be ready to give him money on interest and was not willing to retain his vehicle and by giving Rs.2,80,000/-, the petitioner told him that he may relieve his vehicle by paying the money. 2.3. The complainant alleged that thereafter the petitioner was charging him 24% interest and on daily basis collected Rs.12,400/- under threat for about 30 days. 2.3. The complainant alleged that thereafter the petitioner was charging him 24% interest and on daily basis collected Rs.12,400/- under threat for about 30 days. The complainant stated that he has made payment through cash as well as by transfer of money in the account of the petitioner and total amount along with interest transferred goes to about Rs.14,00,000/-. 2.4. The complainant thereafter alleged that in the month of July of the current year, one day, at about 9:00 in the morning when he was going towards his shop from his house, the petitioner met him at the bus stand near the house of the petitioner. The complainant went to him and informed him that he had made the payment of Rs.14,00,000/- with interest and along with capital and therefore asked him to give back his vehicle. The complainant alleged that at that time the petitioner got excited and told him that he has yet to recover Rs.17,00,000/- and therefore, the complainant informed him that he already made the total payment and therefore, why was he required to pay Rs.17,00,000/-. The complainant alleged that the petitioner got excited and started abusing the complainant with insulting remarks concerning his caste and threatened to kill him, if he failed to repay the money. The complainant stated that at that time, one Mr. Amrutbhai Tapubhai Vaghela who was staying in his neighborhood heard the sound and came there. Thereafter he had informed about the said incident to his wife and after meeting an advocate, on 01/08/2020, he communicated the same to Kheda Town Police Station through post. The complainant stated that he was called by the police in connection with his letter but since he was busy in connection with his Amul Parlour business at Ahmedabad, he could not go to Kheda Town Police Station. Thus, thereafter, on that day, had gone for filing of the complainant. 3. Mr. Darshit R. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the whole of the incident is falsely alleged, as often the complainant used to borrow money from the petitioner and when the petitioner had asked to return the money, the complainant gave a cheque of Rs.11,50,000/- which was deposited in the bank account, the same was dishonoured and the memo was sent by the bank on the ground of insufficiency of the fund. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate submitted that since the petitioner and the complainant had long term relationship, the petitioner even did not pursue further and the petitioner did not deem it fit to issue a legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act just to maintain relationship. Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate submitted that the complaint itself suggests that there was long term monetary dealings of the complainant with the petitioner, and in times of need, the complainant would often ask for money from the petitioner. Mr. Brhambhatt, learned advocate stated that the facts as alleged in the complaint itself does not disclose any offence under the Atrocity Act. Mr. Brahmbatt, learned advocate states that the complainant even does not remember the date of such incident, thus has not specified the date, but randomly suggested that the incident had taken place in the month of July of the current year. Learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt also submitted that the complainant knew of the fact of dishonour of the cheque and therefore, had filed the FIR to pressurize so that the petitioner shall not demand the money. Learned advocate Mr. Brahmbatt contended that even the person who is named in the FIR as Mr. Amrutbhai Tapubhai Vaghela is not stated to have heard of any such caste remarks allegedly stated to be an insult. Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate submitted that no further details has been given in the FIR specifying as to what has happened after Mr.Amrutbhai Vaghela appeared at the place. 5. Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate submitted that chargesheet papers shows that all the witnesses are friends and relatives of the complainant. Statement of Mr.Amrutbhai Tapubhai Vaghela recorded on 27/08/2020, also suggests that he is the cousin brother of the complainant. Mr.Brahmbhatt, learned advocate submitted that even the said witness has not specified in his statement the date of such incident. Other witnesses i.e. Manishaben is wife of the complainant. Witness Kalabhai Virabhai is relative of the complaint and witnesses Manoj Valji parmar and Nitinkumar Ramanbhai Parmar are friends of the complainant. 6. Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate, referring to the panchnama stated that the panchnama does not disclose the place as the bus stand. The police in presence of panchas has notified the place of offence at some place behind the Nutan Vidhyalalya which is on Kheda-Dholka road. 6. Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned advocate, referring to the panchnama stated that the panchnama does not disclose the place as the bus stand. The police in presence of panchas has notified the place of offence at some place behind the Nutan Vidhyalalya which is on Kheda-Dholka road. While in the complaint, the place is near the house of the petitioner near the bus stand. Such variance in the complaint itself suggests that it is a doubtful case. 7. Mr. M. B. Gohil, learned advocate for the respondent no.2-complainant, relying upon the affidavit of the complainant, submitted that the complainant had given cheque but the same was in the month of February, 2018 and that was by way of security for the loan which the complainant has taken. Mr.Gohil, learned advocate submitted that the return memo which was placed on record is doubtful and the complainant had no knowledge of his cheque being bounced on the ground of insufficiency of the fund and therefore, no ill motive can be attributed in connection with the FIR registered at the police station. Mr. Gohil, learned advocate stated that as per the complaint, bus stop would be the public place and would be considered to be in public view and therefore, prima facie, there is an offence under the Atrocity Act. He further submitted that taking into consideration the object of the Act, the petitioner should be sent for the trial. Mr. Gohil, learned advocate also submitted that the plea that the FIR is a counter blast, to the cheque bounced and to pressurize the petitioner cannot be believed since no legal notice had been issued to the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 8. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that any first information report should be quashed in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Apex Court and the parameters laid down therein. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned APP submitted that the facts of the FIR are required to be examined by the trial court and that is possible only when the witnesses are examined. Whether the offence has occurred in public place and in public view could only be found out when evidence would be recorded before the Court. Thus, he submitted that no discretion should be exercised for quashing the FIR. Learned APP further stated that two of the witnesses are not related to the complainant. 9. Whether the offence has occurred in public place and in public view could only be found out when evidence would be recorded before the Court. Thus, he submitted that no discretion should be exercised for quashing the FIR. Learned APP further stated that two of the witnesses are not related to the complainant. 9. This Court heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused the material on record. 10. The Sections invoked under the Atrocity Act are Section- 3(1)(r), Section-3(1)(s) and Section-3(2)(va) which are reproduced herein under for ready reference: “3(1)(r) – intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. ; 3(1)(s) – abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view. 3(2)(va) – commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offence and shall also be liable to fine.” 11. The FIR alleges that the offence has happened in the current year. The petitioner was near his house when the complainant approached him. The complainant stated that he has gone near the petitioner and had informed that he had already made payment of Rs.14,00,000/- which includes capital and interest and, therefore, had asked the petitioner to give back his vehicle, and, then the petitioner told him that yet Rs.17,00,000/- would be required from him and thus, the complainant questioned the petitioner about it and at that time, the complainant got excited and had used abusive words against his caste. It is to be noted, that what were the specific words, used by the petitioner insulting him by his caste has not been noted, in the FIR. 12. The FIR does not suggests that any third person was present during the incident still further one Amrutbhai on hearing sound of quarrel had appeared there. Statement of Amrutbhai does not disclose the date of the offence and his statement about the place of offence is contrary to what is shown in the panchnama. Rest of the witnesses statement would have no bearing. Statement of Amrutbhai does not disclose the date of the offence and his statement about the place of offence is contrary to what is shown in the panchnama. Rest of the witnesses statement would have no bearing. It has been pointed out by learned advocate Mr.Brahmbhatt going through the statements of the witnesses, that the said witnesses are friends and relatives of the complainant. The complaint does not clarify the place of offence, to denote whether it was a public place and the alleged incident had happened in any public view. If at all Amrutbhai Vaghela’s presence is also to be considered then by his statement, he is cousin brother of the complainant and thus he would not come under the term ‘public’. Thus, the offence as stated would not be attributed under the provision of Atrocity Act against the petitioner. 12.1. In view of the above fact and the reasons given, the1 alleged incident does not attract the provisions of Atrocities Act and further even no such offence under alleged incident for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code is made out. Mere abuse may not come within the purview of Section 504 of IPC and mere threats given by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant, but with a view to deterring him, would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation. The complainant has not alleged that the threats which were administered actually caused any alarm to him and he actually felt threatened. No elements of Section 504, 506(2) of the IPC could be culled out in the FIR. 13. The document on record shows that the cheque No.000016 was issued by the complainant for the amount of Rs.11,50,000/-, with the communication from the Bank of Baroda Nayaka Branch dated 27/03/2020, shows that the said was cheque came to be dishonoured because of insufficiency of fund in the bank account of the complainant. Thus, taking into consideration this fact, Section 384 alleging for extortion cannot be attracted. 14. Considering the facts of the case, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Thus, taking into consideration this fact, Section 384 alleging for extortion cannot be attracted. 14. Considering the facts of the case, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. V. Bhajan Lal & Ors reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 wherein, the Apex Court has broadly set out the circumstances in which the High Court can exercise the power under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Court. Paragraphs 102 and 103 thereof read as under: “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formula and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provisions in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 15. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned complaint being FIR No.11204025200790 of 2020 registered with Kheda Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘The Atrocity Act’) as well as all the consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof qua the petitioner are quashed and set aside. 16. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.