JUDGMENT : G.A. Sanap, J. 1. In this application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) the applicant has prayed that the First Information Report bearing No. 109/2021 dated 15th March, 2021 registered against him with the Morshi Police Station, Morshi on the report of the non-applicant No. 2 for the offences punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “S.C. & S.T. Act”) be quashed and set aside. The facts leading to this application are as follows: On the oral report of the non-applicant No. 2 lodged on 15th March, 2021 the crime as stated above has been registered against the applicant. The non-applicant No. 2 alleged in the report that the applicant has let out one shop situated at Shri Chakradhar Complex, Morshi to her at monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. She has paid Rs. 2,50,000/- as security deposit in the presence of one Hemant Lakde. The transaction was oral. It is alleged that on 8th March, 2021 at about 3.45 p.m. when she was proceeding to her village Dhanora after closing her shop by auto-rickshaw at that time near Jaistambh Chowk, Morshi applicant came there in his red colour car and stopped auto-rickshaw. The applicant asked the auto-rickshaw driver to get down from the same as he wanted to talk with the non-applicant No. 2. The driver got out from the auto-rickshaw. It is further case of the non-applicant No. 2 that, thereafter the applicant requested her to give statement against Hemant Lakde in their dispute. The non-applicant No. 2 refused to do the same. It is stated that, therefore, the applicant abused the non-applicant No. 2, that Tula Pai Nahi Mi Tuze Hath wa Jibh Pan Kapun takin, Tu Godin Ahe Godinach Rahashil ^^rqyk ik; ukgh eh rq>s gkFk ok ftHk iu dkiwu Vkdhu] rq xksMhu vkgs xksMhup jkg'khyA** The non-applicant No. 2 got frightened and, therefore, she called the driver of the auto-rickshaw. The applicant left the said place and non-applicant No. 2 went to her village. It is stated that the non-applicant No. 2 had confusion in respect of name of the accused and after confirming his name she lodged the report with the Police on 15th March, 2021. The applicant left the said place and non-applicant No. 2 went to her village. It is stated that the non-applicant No. 2 had confusion in respect of name of the accused and after confirming his name she lodged the report with the Police on 15th March, 2021. On the basis of this report the First Information Report was registered and the crime has been investigated. 2. In this application it is the case of the applicant that the report lodged against him is false and frivolous. It cannot stand the scrutiny of law inasmuch as no offence could be said to be made out, if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are taken at their face value. It is stated that there is a dispute between the applicant and Hemant Lakde. The applicant has been doing service at Pune. Late father of the applicant had purchased field Survey No. 1/2, admeasuring 81 R at mouza Rasalpur (Yerla), Taluka-Morshi, District Amravati. In the year 2004, the sanction was obtained for construction of 32 shops from the competent authority. The construction of 16 shops was completed on the lower ground-floor and 16 shops were to be constructed on the upper floor. The construction of the lower ground floor was completed in the year 2009. Out of 16 shops of lower ground floor Shop No. 16 was sold to one Murad Ali Mohd. Ali on 11th October, 2010. Thereafter the applicant got a job at Pune and got married in the year 2012. The mother of the applicant started residing with him at Pune. The sister of the applicant is residing at Nagpur. She married with one Nilesh Deshmukh, resident of Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. The sister would frequently go to Amravati to look after the property. 3. It is stated that in the passage of time it became difficult for them to look after the property and, therefore, the applicant appointed Hemant Lakde as caretaker-cum-watchman of the said commercial complex. The applicant had transferred Rs. 1,50,200/- through bank transaction to Hemant Lakde between 8th February, 2019 to 13th April, 2019, for the purpose of maintenance, painting and renovation of the commercial complex. It is stated that said Hemant Lakde misappropriated the said amount. Hemant Lakde illegally started tactics to grab the property particularly Shop Nos. 4 and 5. The applicant came to know about the activities of Hemant Lakde. It is stated that said Hemant Lakde misappropriated the said amount. Hemant Lakde illegally started tactics to grab the property particularly Shop Nos. 4 and 5. The applicant came to know about the activities of Hemant Lakde. He questioned Hemant Lakde about it. Hemant Lakde instead of paying heed to the request of applicant threatened the applicant that he would file a false case of atrocity and extended the threat of dire consequences. The applicant lodged reports with the Police on 25th January, 2020, 2nd February, 2020, 4th February, 2020 and 15th October, 2020. It is stated that as the dispute between them got escalated the applicant filed civil suit against Hemant Lakde and others being Special Civil Suit No. 62/2021. In the said suit, vide order dated 5th March, 2021, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati granted ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction in favour of the applicant. 4. It is submitted that the applicant has been staying at Pune. He had came to Amravati for filing the suit. On 8th March, 2021, he deposited charges for special Bailiff. He accompanied the Bailiff for the purpose of service on 8th March, 2021. It is submitted that in view of the dispute between the applicant and Hemant Lakde the false report has been lodged against him. It is stated that the applicant has no concern with the shops situated at Shri Chakradhar Complex, Morshi. He had no transaction with the non-applicant No. 2. It is submitted that by taking advantage of the presence of the applicant at Amravati on 8th March, 2021 the belated report has been lodged against him at the instance of Hemant Lakde. It is submitted that he has not committed any crime. The report is false and frivolous. 5. The Investigating Officer filed reply and opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has denied the material facts pleaded in the application. The Investigating Officer has stated that investigation has been conducted on the basis of the report of the non-applicant No. 2. There is sufficient evidence to establish the complicity of the applicant in the commission of crime. 6. The non-applicant No. 2 has filed reply and opposed the application. She has denied the material facts pleaded in the application. In the reply she has reiterated the facts recorded in the F.I.R. on the basis of the report. There is sufficient evidence to establish the complicity of the applicant in the commission of crime. 6. The non-applicant No. 2 has filed reply and opposed the application. She has denied the material facts pleaded in the application. In the reply she has reiterated the facts recorded in the F.I.R. on the basis of the report. It is contended that the applicant has taken disadvantage of her disability and pressurized her. The applicant has abused her by caste in the presence of the auto-rickshaw driver. 7. We have heard learned Advocate for the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned Advocate for the non-applicant No. 2. Perused the record and proceedings. 8. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that there is no iota of evidence to constitute the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the S.C. & S.T. Act. Learned Advocate submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R. taken at their face value do not make out any offence against the applicant. Learned Advocate submitted that the delay in lodging the report clearly indicate that it was after thought and in connivance with Hemant Lakde. Learned Advocate submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence. Learned Advocate submitted that there is no evidence to make out the alleged offence against the applicant. Learned Advocate submitted that the prosecution on the basis of the false report if allowed to continue would be abuse of process of law. In order to substantiate the submission learned Advocate has relied upon following four decisions: (i) Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (3) Mh.L.J. 368 . (ii) V.P. Shetty vs. Sr. Inspector of Police, Colaba, Mumbai and Another, 2005 All MR (Cri) 2384 (iii) Dr. Manali and Others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2020 All MR (Cri) 945 (iv) Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of A.P. and Others, 2008 (4) RCR (Criminal) 171 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced on record the investigation papers and submitted that the facts stated in the F.I.R. at the face value would constitute the offence against the applicant. 10. Learned Advocate for the non-applicant No. 2 submitted that at this stage the exercise of appreciation of evidence cannot be undertaken. Learned Advocate submitted that the facts recorded in the F.I.R. need to be considered to find out whether the offence alleged has been made out or not. 10. Learned Advocate for the non-applicant No. 2 submitted that at this stage the exercise of appreciation of evidence cannot be undertaken. Learned Advocate submitted that the facts recorded in the F.I.R. need to be considered to find out whether the offence alleged has been made out or not. Learned Advocate further submitted that the defence of the accused of a false implication as stated in this application cannot be appreciated at this stage. 11. In order to appreciate the rival submissions we have perused the F.I.R., statements of witnesses and the other material collected during the course of investigation by the Investigating Officer. In this case it is necessary to see whether on prima facie analysis of the material on record the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the S.C. & S.T. Act is made out or not. In order to appreciate the rival submissions it would be necessary to re-produce the relevant part of Section 3, sub-Section (1)(r)&(s). It reads thus: Section 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.” Section 3(1)(s) “abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view.” 12. The learned Advocate submitted that the fundamental ingredient of the offence that the insult, intimidation or abuse by the appellant by the caste of the applicant No. 2 in a place within public view has not been made out in this case. In the decision relied upon by the learned Advocate for the applicant in support of the submission, the similar question fell for consideration, in the case of Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare vs. State of Maharashtra. The provisions of Section 3(1)(x) which were in pari materia with Section 3(1)(r) and (s) have been considered. The relevant observations have been made in Para No. 8. It would be advantageous to re-produce the said paragraph. It reads thus: “(8) However, the learned Advocate is justified in contending that the complaint nowhere discloses that the said expression was used in public view. In fact, the contents of the FIR nowhere disclose that the said expression was communicated to the complainant either in the place accessible to the public or in the presence of the public. It reads thus: “(8) However, the learned Advocate is justified in contending that the complaint nowhere discloses that the said expression was used in public view. In fact, the contents of the FIR nowhere disclose that the said expression was communicated to the complainant either in the place accessible to the public or in the presence of the public. It is nowhere stated by the complainant that at the time when the said statement was made by the petitioner No. 2, i.e. on 15th August, 2004 at 9.30 a.m., there was any stranger to witness the said incident. The provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act would be attracted only in case of insulting or intimidating a member of the scheduled caste in any place within a public view. The expression “in any place within public view” has specific meaning. It does not mean that every allegation made in a public place that itself would amount to an offence under the said Act. The expression “public view” has been prefixed by the preposition “within” which in fact follows the expression “in any place”. In other words, the expression relating to the location of the alleged offence is qualified by the requirement of being “within public view”. The act of insult or intimidation must be visible and audible to the public in order to constitute such act to be an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act. In the provision of law comprised under Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act, the word “view” refers to that of ‘public’ but prefixed by the expression “in any place within”. Being so, the word “public” not only relates to the location defined by the word “place” but also to the subjects witnessing the incidence of insult or intimidation to the member of scheduled caste or tribe. Therefore, the incidence of insult or intimidation has to occur in a place accessible to and in the presence of the public. The presence of both these ingredients would be absolutely necessary to constitute an offence under the said provision of law. The complaint disclosing absence of both or even any one of those ingredients would not be sufficient to accuse the person of having committed an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act.” 13. In the case of Dr. The presence of both these ingredients would be absolutely necessary to constitute an offence under the said provision of law. The complaint disclosing absence of both or even any one of those ingredients would not be sufficient to accuse the person of having committed an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act.” 13. In the case of Dr. Manali and others vs. State of Maharashtra, the decision in the case of Pradnya vs. State of Maharashtra was considered. It is held in the decision of the Division Bench of this Court that the incident of insult or intimidation has to occur in a place accessible and in the presence of public. It is further held that the presence of both these ingredients would be absolutely necessary to constitute an offence under the said provision of law. It is held that if the complaint discloses absence of both or any one of those ingredients would not be sufficient to accuse a person of having committed an offence under this Section. The same proposition of law has been laid down in the case of V.P. Shetty vs. Sr. Inspector of Police. 14. The learned Advocate relying upon the decision in the case of Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of A.P. and others submitted that there is no mention in the report that the applicant/accused was not the member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with an intent to humiliate the complainant in a place within public view. The judgment has been further relied upon to demonstrate the basic requirements to quash and set aside the F.I.R. by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that in order to attract the offence the act must be done in a place within public view. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that in the following seven contingencies the inherent powers can be exercised to quash the criminal proceeding. The same are as follows: “(1) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. The same are as follows: “(1) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. (3) Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. (4) Wholesome power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code entitles the High Court to quash the proceedings when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed - The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. (5) When a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. 1988(1) RCR (Criminal) 565 relied. (6) Power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has to be exercised by the High Court, inter-alia, to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends or justice. 2000 (4) RCR (Criminal) 762 relied. (7) Inherent powers under Section 482 should be exercised for the advancement of justice – If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be fully justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers of the court.” 15. The learned Advocate for the non-applicant No. 2 relying on the decision of the Swaran Singh and Others vs. State through Standing Counsel and Another, (2008) 8 SCC 435 submitted that in the case at hand perusal of the F.I.R. in entirety, would show that the basic requirements constituting the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the S.C. & S.T. Act have been made out. In this case it is held that calling a member of the scheduled caste “Chamar” with intent to insult or humiliate him in a place within public view is certainly an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the S.C. & ST. Act. In this case it is held that calling a member of the scheduled caste “Chamar” with intent to insult or humiliate him in a place within public view is certainly an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the S.C. & ST. Act. In para No. 28 of this decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the offence must be committed in a place within public view. It is further held that if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. 16. In order to consider the applicability of the law laid down in the judgments (cited supra) it would be necessary to prima facie analyse the facts stated in the reply and the available evidence to find out whether the basic ingredients constituting the offence have been made out or not. In our opinion in order to appreciate the same, the facts brought on record during the investigation as well as by the applicant in this proceeding need to be stated at the outset. A serious dispute is going on between the applicant and Hemant Lakde. The perusal of the investigation papers would show that there is no iota of evidence to substantiate the contention of the non-applicant No. 2 that the applicant has rented out a shop to her. The applicant has produced on record four complaints made against Hemant Lakde dated 25th January, 2020, 2nd February 2020, 4th February 2020 and 15th October 2020. All these complaints were made to the Police against Hemant Lakde. Perusal of the complaints would show that the applicant has categorically stated that Hemant Lakde threatened him to involve in the atrocity crime and to face the dire consequences. It is the case of the applicant that Hemant Lakde instigated non-applicant No. 2 to lodge false case against him. The order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati against Hemant Lakde and others is on record at Annexure-C dated 5th March, 2021. This order was served upon Hemant Lakde and others on 8th March, 2021. Annexure-D is the receipt of deposit of Special Bailiff charges by the applicant. The order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati against Hemant Lakde and others is on record at Annexure-C dated 5th March, 2021. This order was served upon Hemant Lakde and others on 8th March, 2021. Annexure-D is the receipt of deposit of Special Bailiff charges by the applicant. It is apparent on the face of record that on 8th March, 2021 Hemant Lakde and others came to know about filing of the suit and ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted against them. The applicant was admittedly present at Amravati. He had accompanied the Bailiff for the purpose of service. According to the non-applicant No. 2 the incident occurred on 8th March, 2021 at about 3.45 p.m. It is pertinent to note that the period from the date of order passed by the Civil Court from 5th March, 2021 to 8th March, 2021 would be very relevant. It is pertinent to note that the report of this incident occurred on 8th March, 2021 was lodged on 15th March, 2021. It is, therefore, apparent that there was seven days delay in lodging the report. The reason for delay in lodging the report as can be seen from the F.I.R. is that there was doubt about the name of the accused and, therefore, to ascertain the name the report could not be lodged immediately. It is pertinent to mention that the non-applicant No. 2 on her own has stated that the applicant has let out a shop to her for doing a business at the monthly rent of Rs. 500/- in the month of December 2018. While prima facie analyzing the facts stated in the F.I.R. this fact would also an assume importance. The non-applicant No. 2 wants this Court to believe that though she has started dealing with applicant in 2018 she had no knowledge of his correct name till the date of the incident. All the above stated facts cannot be brushed aside while deciding the application made by the applicant. 17. It would be necessary to prima facie consider the relevant facts stated in the F.I.R. to see whether the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the S.C. & S.T. Act is made out or not. It is stated that the non-applicant No. 2 was travelling in the autorickshaw to her village. It is further stated that the applicant came there in his car and stopped the auto-rickshaw. It is stated that the non-applicant No. 2 was travelling in the autorickshaw to her village. It is further stated that the applicant came there in his car and stopped the auto-rickshaw. The accused asked auto-rickshaw driver to get down from the auto-rickshaw. It is stated that after the driver got down from the auto-rickshaw the applicant sat in the auto-rickshaw and requested her to give a statement against Hemant Lakde, but she refused to do it. It is stated that, therefore, the accused intimidated and insulted her and abused her by her caste. So, according to the non-applicant No. 2, at the relevant time, the auto-rickshaw was in Jaistambh Chowk, Morshi and when the accused insulted or abused her by her caste, the auto-rickshaw driver was present on the spot. On the basis of this statement it is sought to be established that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the S.C. & S.T. Act occurred in a place within public view. 18. In the background of the above stated facts and the contents of the F.I.R. it would be necessary to prima facie analyze the material produced by the Investigating Officer along with reply. It is pertinent to note that in the F.I.R. the name of the autorickshaw driver has not been mentioned. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the auto-rickshaw driver, namely, Surendra Shankarrao Ingale on 19th March, 2021. His second statement was recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Morshi under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 6th April, 2021. Perusal of both the statements would show that he has not whispered about the presence of applicant on the spot. He has stated that after parking the auto-rickshaw in the chowk he had gone to the market to buy some goods. He has further stated that after he came back the applicant told him that Aakash Ingole had come there and abused her by her caste. In his first statement he has mentioned the name of the applicant as Avakash Ingole and in the statement before the Magistrate he has mentioned the name of the applicant as Aakash Ingole. This statement, if considered prima facie, would show that on the date of the incident the applicant No. 2 knew the name of the applicant. In his first statement he has mentioned the name of the applicant as Avakash Ingole and in the statement before the Magistrate he has mentioned the name of the applicant as Aakash Ingole. This statement, if considered prima facie, would show that on the date of the incident the applicant No. 2 knew the name of the applicant. Be that as it may, the statement of this witness would show that no incident as stated in F.I.R. occurred in his presence. Perusal of various statements recorded by the Investigating Officer, for prima facie analysis, would show that not a single witness has stated about the occurrence of the incident mentioned in the F.I.R. in their presence. Therefore, on perusal of the material and on prima facie analyzing the same, save and except the statement of the non-applicant No. 2, there is no evidence with regard to the occurrence of the incident. In our view, on the basis of the facts stated in the F.I.R. in the absence of other material, the basic ingredients of the offence would not be established in this case. The basic requirement is that the so called acts mentioned in clauses (r) and (s) of Section 3, sub-section (1) must take place in any place within public view. There is no evidence to prima facie establish that any act was done by applicant within public view. In view of the facts and the material considered above, we conclude that the proposition of law laid down in the Judgment cited supra by the learned Advocate for the applicant squarely applies to this case. We, therefore, conclude that the basic ingredients of Section 3 sub-Section (1)(r) and (s) have not been made out. Similarly, the contention of the applicant of his false implication cannot be ruled out in the backdrop of the chronology of the events and the documentary evidence placed on record by him with regard to his dispute with Hemant Lakde. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M. Srikanth vs. State of Telangana and Another, (2019) 10 SCC 373 has held that where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute a case against the accused, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. In the case of Rashmi Chopra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2019) 15 SCC 357 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has considered the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC (Cri) 335. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the criminal prosecution can be allowed to proceed only when prima facie offence is disclosed. It is held that the judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of oppression or harassment. If the High Court finds that the proceeding deserves to be quashed as per the parameters as laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case, the High Court shall not hesitate, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings. 20. In our view the prosecution in this case cannot be allowed to continue. In the backdrop of the prima facie analysis of the material placed on record in our view the continuation of the prosecution would be abuse of process of law. In our opinion, the case in hand would be squarely covered under clauses (3), (4) and (7) of the decision in the case of Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of A.P. and others (cited supra). In our view, the proposition of law laid down in the judgments cited supra by the learned Advocate for the applicant squarely applies to the facts of this case. The proposition of law laid down in the decision relied upon by the learned Advocate for the non-applicant No. 2, is not applicable in the backdrop of the facts of this case. In view of the facts, law and evidence we, therefore, conclude that this is a fit case to quash the F.I.R. Hence, following order: ORDER: (i) The application is allowed. (ii) The First Information Report No. 109/2021, dated 15th March, 2021 registered against the applicant at Police Station Morshi, Taluka Morshi, District Amravati for the offences punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is quashed and set aside. (iii) The applicant stands discharged from the said crime.