ORDER : This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to quash the FIR and complaint in Crime No.129/2018 of Raghavendra Nagar Police Station, pending on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in FIR No.74/2018 for offences punishable under Section 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent No.2 in his complaint dated 31.07.2018 gave a complaint to the police against the petitioners herein alleging that the complainant did not support the petitioners for their corruption and hence having ill-will against the complainant subjected him for caste humiliation and not paid salary for a period of 15 months. These two petitioners belong to Lingayat community and this harassment continued from April-2007 till date of filing the complaint. It is also alleged in the complaint that a complaint was filed against the complainant/respondent No.2 herein that he has misappropriated the funds of the college against him and also one Virupakshappa Engineer vide complaint dated 06.04.2017. The police have investigated the matter and filed the B-report. The petitioners have withheld his salary from April-2017 only on the ground that a case has been registered against him and when he went and approached the petitioners they abused taking his caste name and insulted him. It is also the allegation in the complaint that on 23.07.2018 at about 10.30 a.m., when as usual he went to office and signed in the attendance register and went to the chambers of petitioner No.1 P.J.Yekantappa and requested to make salary on the ground that his father is not keeping good health and he has to take him to Bangalore hospital. Inspite of the request made he refused to disburse the salary and abused in filthy language and this incident was witnessed by one Firoz and pacified their quarrel. Based on this complaint a case has been registered for the offence and police have also investigated the matter. 4. Inspite of the request made he refused to disburse the salary and abused in filthy language and this incident was witnessed by one Firoz and pacified their quarrel. Based on this complaint a case has been registered for the offence and police have also investigated the matter. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners would vehemently contend that the respondent No.2 is having grudge against the petitioner No.1 and hence, he filed a false complaint only with an intention to harass the petitioners and no such incident has taken place and they were falsely implicated in the case. Nowhere in the FIR and complaint any allegation is made against the petitioners that they have any intention to insult or intimidates with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. The contents of the complaint also do not make out a prima facie case against the petitioners. The petitioner No.1 being the Project Manager of Nirmithi Kendra, Kalaburagi as per the direction issued by the Secretary, Hyderabad Karnataka Regional Development Board, Kalaburagi vide letter dated 25.01.2017 and also the letter issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kalaburagi dated 27.02.2017, was directed to take action and register a police case against the concerned persons for misappropriating the Government funds and based on the said direction of the superior officers, the petitioner No.1 has filed a police complaint before the Mahagaon Police Station on 06.04.2017 against the complainant herein and his brother who have misappropriated an amount of Rs.5,12,000/-. The complainant in the above case having malafide intention to give harassment to the petitioners has lodged a false complaint against the petitioners herein. These petitioners are not having personal enmity against the complainant. The police have investigated the matter and filed the B-report and he has filed the objection to the B-report and hence on the very next day he has lodged the complaint. The learned counsel in his arguments brought to the notice of this Court the additional documents placed before the Court and he had produced copy of final report, order sheet, issuance of notice against the petitioners herein consequent upon filing of the B-report. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court, the reply given by the complainant to the B-report filed before the trial Court on 30.07.2018. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court, the reply given by the complainant to the B-report filed before the trial Court on 30.07.2018. The learned counsel also placed the documents such as notice issued dated 26.07.2018, report dated 28.07.2018 and also copy of the reply. This complaint is offshoot to the said reply and on the very next day, a false allegation is made against this petitioner and hence, it is clear that it is an abuse of process. On perusal of the complaint, it is evident that no specific allegation is made of any particular date and only general omnibus allegation is made. Except stating that quarrel took place between the complainant and petitioner No.1 on 23.07.2018 and also the same is with regard to refusal for making salary and none of the ingredients of the offence attracts against the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that when the complaint is given with an oblique motive, criminal prosecution cannot be continued. The learned counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that when the criminal complaint was prima facie false and frivolous and filed with an oblique motive, the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C., and quash the complaint. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported and discussed the inherent powers of the High Court in this judgment. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Basavareddy vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2014 SCC Online Kar 6575, wherein also, it is observed that the intention of the respondent No.2 is to drag the petitioners to the Court unnecessarily and hence, FIR is liable to be quashed and in similar set of circumstance when the offence is invoked under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the petition allowed and quashed the proceedings and FIR. The learned counsel referring these two judgments would vehemently contend that this case is the classic example of abuse of process and requires interference by exercising power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6. The learned counsel referring these two judgments would vehemently contend that this case is the classic example of abuse of process and requires interference by exercising power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would vehemently contend that respondent No.2 was subjected to caste humiliation and when the contents of the complaint disclose committing of offence, there cannot be any quashing of complaint. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Bihar and Another vs. K.J.D. Singh reported in 1993 Crl.L.J. 3537, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that invoking inherent power prior to commencement of trial, leading of evidence is not desirable and power should be exercised in exceptional cases. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in the case of Rajiv Thapar and Others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330 , wherein it is held that the High Court cannot exercise discretion under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., quashing of proceedings and defence material cannot be relied on to quash the proceedings. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta and Others reported in (2015) 3 SCC 424 , wherein it is observed that at the stage of taking cognizance of offence, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind with a view of take cognizance of offence. The Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or material or arguments nor is he required to evaluate the merit of the case or evidence of the complainant. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment in the case of Rakhi Mishra vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 4019 when the complaint discloses prima facie case against the accused persons, the same cannot be quashed. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in the case of Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2018) 6 SCC 454 , quashment of proceedings in case of abuse of process, the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings amounting to abuse of process has been reiterated in the judgment. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that said power cannot be said to be taken away by provisions of the Act. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that said power cannot be said to be taken away by provisions of the Act. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Motiram Padu Joshi and Others vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No.1479 of 2015. Referring these judgments, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that when the complaint discloses prima facie material to proceed against the accused, power under section 482 cannot be exercised. 7. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment in the case of Arumugam Servai vs.State of Tamil Nadu Reported in (2011) 6 SCC 405 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that insulting/hurting anyone’s feelings on account of his caste, religion, tribe, language, etc., deprecated. The learned counsel referring these judgments vehemently contended that the complaint clearly discloses that the complainant was subjected to caste humiliation and also abuse in filthy language. Hence, the matter requires probe. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and also on perusal of the judgments referred supra by the respective counsels, this Court has to examine whether it is case of abuse of process or complaint discloses prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners herein. When the FIR is registered and the same is challenged before this Court, this Court has to exercise discretion under section 482 of Cr.P.C., sparingly and should not venture to probe into the matter. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in the case of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs The State of Gujarat and Others reported in 2018 (3) SCC 104 , held that if complaint discloses committing of offence and the investigating officer has to probe the same and the High Court should not venture to sit as an appellate Court and interfere with the domain of the investigating officer in curing the principles laid down in the judgment and also judgments referred supra, this Court has to consider the contents of the complaint. No doubt, the complaint is given on 31.07.2018 and also it is to be noted that in the complaint itself, it was stated that the complaint was given against the complainant on 06.04.2017 and a case has been registered and the police after investigation have filed the B-report on 25.11.2017. No doubt, the complaint is given on 31.07.2018 and also it is to be noted that in the complaint itself, it was stated that the complaint was given against the complainant on 06.04.2017 and a case has been registered and the police after investigation have filed the B-report on 25.11.2017. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that the objection is filed by the petitioner No.1 before the trial Court in respect of B-report on 30.07.2018 consequent upon the notice issued to him with regard to filing of B-report, the Court has to take note of the respective dates and the said objection filed before the trial Court on 30.07.2018 and present complaint is filed on 31.07.2018 on the very next day, wherein allegation is made that he was subjected to caste humiliation and he was abused in filthy language. On perusal of the contents of the complaint it is evident that general allegation is made and that he was subjected to harassment from April-2017. The period mentioned is very important since the complaint is filed against this complaint on 06.04.2017 that the complainant as well as other Sri Virupakshappa have misused the funds. No doubt, the police have investigated the matter and filed the B-report. But it is important to note that the complaint was given on 31.07.2018, but the date is mentioned as 23.07.2018 on which date the incident has taken place and he was abused in filthy language. The allegation of invoking special enactment is also omnibus allegation in the complaint and it was stated that he belongs to lower caste and not mentioned a particular word which was used on that particular day. Hence, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that this complaint is offshoot of filing of objection to the B-report by the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to the notice of this Court that this complainant is dismissed from the service for misappropriation of the funds. The said submission is not warranted and this Court cannot discuss whether he was dismissed from the service or not. But the Court has to take note of the contents of the complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to the notice of this Court that this complainant is dismissed from the service for misappropriation of the funds. The said submission is not warranted and this Court cannot discuss whether he was dismissed from the service or not. But the Court has to take note of the contents of the complaint. Having perused the complaint, it is clear that it is nothing but general omnibus allegation and hence, it is clear that complainant is having ill-will against the petitioners herein since the complaint was given on 06.04.2017 against this complainant and a case was registered for misappropriation of amount and complaint also discloses that from the month of giving the complaint against him, the allegation is made that he was subjected to harassment which was general in nature. When such being the case wherein general allegations are made and the complaint do not find any specific incident of specific abuse, it is nothing but an abuse of process. It is clear that the complainant is having ill-will against the petitioners herein since the petitioner No.1 has lodged the complaint against him. But, it is clear that the said complaint is lodged by the petitioner No.1 against the complainant based on the direction of superior authority regarding misappropriation of amount by the complainant and another. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gorige Pentaiah’s case referred supra that when the criminal case was false and frivolous and filed with an oblique motive, the Court can exercise power under section 482 of Cr.P.C., No doubt, the principles laid down in the judgments cited by the respondent No.2 which are referred above, it is clear that when the complaint discloses prima facie case, the Court cannot exercise power under section 482 of Cr.P.C., but the High Court can exercise power only in exceptional cases. But this case comes within the meaning of exceptional cases since there is an abuse of process and with only an oblique motive that too when the petitioner No.1 has filed the objection statement to the B-report, on the very next day, present complaint is filed by the complainant making general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners and hence, this is a fit case to exercise power under section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings or otherwise, it amounts to an abuse of process which leads to miscarriage of justice. 9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in FIR and complaint in Crime No.129/2018 of Raghavendra Nagar Police Station Kalaburagi, I FIR No.74/2008 is hereby quashed.