JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Varun Z.Bharda and Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respective respondents. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith. 2. The present application has been preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of the FIR registered at Chikhali Police Station, District - Navsari as Cr.No.II-105 of 2017 on 14.06.2017 for offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and section 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, “the Atrocities Act”). 3. The land dispute has been raised by the complainant and her family members, where it is the plea of the applicants that the complainant had encroached upon 10’x5’ = 50 feet land of the applicants and has constructed a shed. The applicant no.1 and the labourers had gone for demarcation of the boundaries between land, and while they were drawing the line with lime, the complainant without any rhyme or reason had picked up quarrel, and the complainant and her husband resisted the applicants to make a boundary line and to create a fence and when the applicant no.2 intervened the complainant, her husband and her father-in-law rushed to beat applicant no.2 with stick and pulled his collar and threatened to kill them. 4. Advocate Mr. Girish K.Patel for the applicants submits that the complainant, her husband and father-in-law threatened to frame them under the Atrocities Act and in case of rape and thus, the applicants gave a written complaint to Chikhali Police Station on 02.06.2017 narrating the correct facts and the acts done by the complainant. Further, an application was also given to D.S.P. Navsari for providing protection for carrying out the fencing on 02.06.2017. 4.1 Mr. Patel further stated that, the respondent no.2 - complainant had also earlier given some complaint on 28.03.2017 with an intention to encroach upon the lands of the applicants by misusing the process of law and police machinery and taking disadvantage of their caste. The complainant being a lady misusing her caste and threatened to fulfill the aim of further encroachment and thus a false complaint came to be filed against the applicants. 4.2 Mr. Patel submits that FIR is filed to create havoc and fear in the minds of the public and applicants. The complainant being a lady misusing her caste and threatened to fulfill the aim of further encroachment and thus a false complaint came to be filed against the applicants. 4.2 Mr. Patel submits that FIR is filed to create havoc and fear in the minds of the public and applicants. It is submitted that respondent no.2 is habitual in picking up quarrel with the only intention to encroach upon the applicants’ land. He submits that the applicants are victimized because of the false and frivolous complaint under the Atrocities Act, where the dispute is absolutely civil in nature and thus, relying upon the judgment of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr., reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 , Mr. Patel submits that, if there is any dispute between the parties about the possession of land, that gives rise to a civil dispute between the parties and when the case is not made out under section 3(1)(r) of the Atrocities Act, Mr. Patel submits that, extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised for quashing of the FIR. 4.3 Mr. Patel further submits that, as per the allegation in the FIR, the incident has not occurred in a public place nor in public view, as according to the complainant, on 02.06.2017, the husband of the complainant has left for the school for attending the admission process and her parents-in-law were present at home, and she was engaged in domestic work; at that time, at about 8:30, the present applicants, who are shown as adjoining agricultural land owner, had asked the complainant to draw line of lime from their front yard of the house for creating a fence. At that time, the complainant asked the applicants to make the compound in their own land and it was alleged that both the accused got excited and abused her by her caste and had threatened to remove them from their property. 4.4 Mr. Patel submits that, the complainant alleged that, during this scuffle, she was pushed and thrown down on the ground and as she raised alarm, her parents-in- law ran down and had saved her from further beatings. So it is alleged by the complainant that at that time, both the persons had left the place threatening that they would make them vacant the land. So it is alleged by the complainant that at that time, both the persons had left the place threatening that they would make them vacant the land. It is also alleged that, while they were going ahead on the road, they met her husband where they stopped him, pulled him with his collar and raised the scuffle. The complainant states that her husband had great difficulty in getting himself released from them. 4.5 Thus, submitting the facts of the complaint, Mr. Patel stated that, at the time of incident, the present applicants and the complainant were only present, while it has not been made clear whether the complainant was in the house or outside. Mr. Patel further submitted that the incident had not occurred in presence of any public view nor in any public place. As per the complainant’s version, even her parents-in-law had not seen the incident. Thus, submitted that the dispute is regarding the boundary of the adjacent lands and as per the complainant, Bhikhubhai Jinabhai Kanbi Patel of Vandervela Kanbiwad, Takuka - Vansada, District - Navsari, had given one and half Guntha land, thirty years prior to complaint, to her father-in-law for constructing a house. The house of father-in-law is in the said one and half Guntha land, which is in Block No.711 falling in Land Account No.230. 4.6 Mr. Patel states that the land of the present applicants is Survey No.717; thus the land dispute, as per Mr. Patel, is very old and since the applicants wanted to fence their area, false complaint has been given against them. 5. Advocate Mr. Varun Z.Bharda along with Mr. Zubin F.Bharda, learned advocate for the complainant vehemently contended that, the very complaint of the applicants suggests that the labourers were present that at the time of incident, which clarifies that the incident had taken place in the public view. Mr. Varun Bharda submitted that the incident has taken place near the house of complainant and she was abused by her caste, and the applicants have threatened to kill her and the family members. He submitted that the boundary issue cannot be given a colour of civil dispute, as Mr. Mr. Varun Bharda submitted that the incident has taken place near the house of complainant and she was abused by her caste, and the applicants have threatened to kill her and the family members. He submitted that the boundary issue cannot be given a colour of civil dispute, as Mr. Bharda submits that the offence is not predominantly civil in nature, since the victim - complainant was abused by her caste and thus submits that SC & ST Act has been enacted to the noble legislative intent to protect the downtrodden members of SC & ST community; hence, Mr. Bharda submits that, the intent of the Act has to be followed in letters and spirit, and an opportunity is to be granted to the complainant to prove her case by adducing evidence on record. Mr. Bharda relied on the decisions in the cases of Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya Vs. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari, reported in AIR 2021 SC 5368 and Puran Chand Gupta Vs. State NCT of Delhi, reported in Air Online 2022 Del 563. 6. Copy of panchnama and the village map shows that the land of the complainant’s father-in-law and that of the applicants are adjacent to each other. Both sides have not denied the boundary disputes. As per the panchnama, on the eastern side of the complainant’s house, at the distance of 10 feet, there is an open agricultural land, whereupon on the date of panchnama they found black soil, and on the east of the said area approximately at the distance of 50 feet, there were 52 mango plants, and the said land was found to be in the name of Bhikhubhai; and from the place of the offence in western side, approximately at a distance of 10 feet, an iron roof top hut is shown of the complainant and beside that there are other residential house, and after at some distance, there is a Tar road; and on the northern side, at a distance of 30 feet, there are cement poles with the barbed wire compound and at a distance of 25 feet, on southern side of the place of offence, there is a mango tree and leaving certain area, there are residential houses. 6.1 The complaint suggests that on 02.06.2017, the applicants, both father and son, had gone at the house of the complainant and had asked her to draw a lime line and to install wire fence. Thus, the applicants had asked them to construct fence in their land, the complaint thus suggests that it was at that time the applicants had abused her by her caste and there was a quarrel and she was thrown down to the grounds, and when she raised hue and cry, both, her mother-in-law and father-in-law rushed at the place and had saved her from further beating. The incident suggests that there is boundary dispute where both the agricultural lands are together and when the incident had occurred only the present applicants and the complainant were present. 7. In case of Hitesh Verma (supra) relied upon by Advocate Mr. Patel, the Hon’ble Apex Court has explained the distinction between expression the ‘public place and in any place within public view’. Section 3(1)(r) substituted by Act 1 of 2016 with effect from 26.01.2016 reads as under: “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;” 8. In Hitesh Verma (supra), the basic ingredients of the offence of section 3(1)(r) of the Act is classified, as (i) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and (ii) in any place within public view. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Atrocities Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. Another key ingredient of the provision is that the insult or intimidation should be in “any place within public view”. It has been observed that the object of the Act is to improve the civil economic condition of SC & ST, as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, offence under the Act would be made out when the member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliation or harassment. It has been observed that the object of the Act is to improve the civil economic condition of SC & ST, as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, offence under the Act would be made out when the member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliation or harassment. Further, it has been observed that the assertion of title over land by either of the parties is not due to either indignities, humiliation or harassment. Every citizen has right to avail the right in accordance with law. Thus, according to the observation, if any person asserts the title on some land, then it becomes dispute civil in nature. 9. Here, in the present case, the land of the father-in-law of the complainant and of the applicants are adjacent to each other. The land as per the panchnama, which is the place of offence, is stated to be in the name of one Bhikhubhai, and according to the complainant her father-in-law was given one and half Guntha land by Bhikhubhai Jinabhai Kanbi Patel for constructing a house. The tenor of the complaint itself suggests that it is a boundary dispute and the complainant was asked to create a fence determining the limits of the land, complainant has refused them to do so, and thereafter she has alleged that she was humiliated in the name of caste. 10. In paragraph-14 of Hitesh Verma, referring to the case of Swaran Singh and others Vs. State, Through Standing Counsel and others, (2008) 8 SCC 435 , it has been observed as under: 14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to be regarded as “place in public view” had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Ors. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression “public place” and “in any place within public view”. It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. The Court held as under: “28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a “chamar”) when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even 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. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression “place within public view” with the expression “public place”. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.” 11. In the present case, the offence is shown to have taken place, outside the house of the complainant, but immediately after the house there are agricultural land and thereafter the mango grove of the applicants. In the present case, the offence is shown to have taken place, outside the house of the complainant, but immediately after the house there are agricultural land and thereafter the mango grove of the applicants. The area does not fall within the public view nor at the time of the incident any person was present there to consider it as an offence taken place in public view. On the northern side, it has been noted in the panchnama that at the distance of 30 feet, there is a cement poles, iron bar compound and on the southern side, at the distance of 25 feet there is mango tree and thereafter leaving that place there are residential houses. The place of offence as per the FIR is the house of the complainant, when she said she was in the house and doing household work, at that time, the applicants had come. Since the matter is regarding possession of land, leading to boundary dispute, would not disclose any offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out. 12. In Swarn Singh (supra), the Apex Court has drawn distinction between the expression “public place” and “in any place within public view”. It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building, e.g. in a lawn outside a house and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building but some members of the public are there but not merely relatives or friends, then it would be an offence in the public view. As per the allegations made in the impugned complaint, the allegations of abusing the complainant was in her house. It is not the case of the complainant that there was any member of the public at the time of the incident in the house or near the house. As per the allegations made in the impugned complaint, the allegations of abusing the complainant was in her house. It is not the case of the complainant that there was any member of the public at the time of the incident in the house or near the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out. In the case on hand, none of the ingredients of the offences alleged against the applicants under the provisions of the Atrocities Act are made out even on a bare reading of the allegations in the impugned complaint. Even if the offence alleged is to be believed to have occurred outside her house, then it is a private land belonging to them where the land was given to her father-in-law. So there won’t be any other residential house apart from theirs. So the offence cannot be said to have been committed in public place and/or in public view and further it is a boundary dispute, hence, no offence under the Act is made out. 13. Considering the fact that it is a dispute regarding the boundary line and as laid down in Ishwar Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2018) 13 SCC 612 , there is no prohibition under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in part. In a petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is required to examine as to whether intervention is required for prevention of abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 14. Thus, taking this fact into consideration, the petition is partly allowed. Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act in the FIR being Cr. No.II-105 of 2017, is quashed and set aside, while the FIR under other sections of IPC would continue. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.