JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.06.2012 passed in the Complaint Case No.1406 of 2011 by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi, and pending in that court. 2. The complaint has been filed alleging therein that the complainant who is the scheduled tribe person has gone to his plot no.28 of Khata No.74 situated in village Kamre. The accused persons/petitioners gathered there and abused the complainant and warned him not to come on these plots otherwise they will assault him and burry in the same land. The complainant further alleged that the land bearing Khata No.74 having 4 acre and 17 decimal has been restored under SAR Case No.898/0506 but the same has been again occupied by the accused persons just after giving the possession by the court. That after enquiry the cognizance has been taken by the court below. 3. Mr. Choubey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are only the tenant of O.P.No.3 and unnecessarily the petitioners have been dragged in this criminal case. He further submits that sub section (v) of section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, speaks of cultivating land allowed to the scheduled castes and wherein the allegations against these petitioners are not with regard to that. He further submits that in the SAR case the learned court has held that the petitioners are raiyat of their land. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Laxman Kumar, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 and Mr. Jalaj Pati Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.3 has appeared and the O.P.No.3 has filed the counter affidavit wherein he has disclosed that these petitioners are the tenants of O.P.no.3. Mr. Kumar, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that there are allegations against the petitioners and this Court may not interfere at this stage under section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Mr. Jitendra Pandey, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that there is no illegality in the cognizance order. 6. The Court has perused the materials on record. Mr. Kumar, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that there are allegations against the petitioners and this Court may not interfere at this stage under section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Mr. Jitendra Pandey, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that there is no illegality in the cognizance order. 6. The Court has perused the materials on record. In one of the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate under section 144 Cr.P.C wherein it has been disclosed that there is an old land dispute in between the O.P.No.2 and 3 where O.P.No.3 is landlord of the land pertaining to Khata No.74 Plot No.28 measuring an area of 4 acres 70 decimals, recorded in the name of Chhota Sukher Munda in the Khatiyan the ancestor of O.P.no.3. The dispute has been raised by O.P.No.2 way back in 1993. In initial proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C started further converted into under section 145 Cr.P.C wherein details has recorded transfer of the land, order has been passed in favour of the O.P.No.3 and it has been suggested by the learned court of SDO to Opp.Party no.2 to approach the competent civil court. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the O.P.No.3 wherein it has been disclosed that the petitioners are the tenants of O.P.No.3. The O.P.No.3 has disclosed in the counter affidavit that O.P.no.2 after concealing the fact has obtained order from the SAR court in Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and the O.P.no.3 has approached the competent civil court by filing title suit bearing Title Suit No.336 of 2011 which is presently pending in the court of Civil Judge First Class Ranchi wherein O.P.No.2 is one of the defendants. 8. It appears that the matter is civil in nature and for that criminality has been shown in the complaint and the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners although the complaint was filed under various sections of IPC as well as under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989. The learned court has taken cognizance only under the SC/ST Act and not under any section of IPC. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710 , paragraph no.12, 13, 14, 18 and 22 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: “12. The learned court has taken cognizance only under the SC/ST Act and not under any section of IPC. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710 , paragraph no.12, 13, 14, 18 and 22 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: “12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as “(1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and (2) in any place within public view”. 13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act 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 Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that Respondent 2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that Respondent 2 is a member of Scheduled Caste. 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 v. State. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression “public place” and “in any place within public view”. 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 v. State. 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. 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 (sic)*. The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28) “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. 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.” (emphasis in original) 18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. 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. 22. The appellant had sought quashing of the charge-sheet on the ground that the allegation does not make out an offence under the Act against the appellant merely because Respondent 2 was a Scheduled Caste since the property dispute was not on account of the fact that Respondent 2 was a Scheduled Caste. The property disputes between a vulnerable section of the society and a person of upper caste will not disclose any offence under the Act unless, the allegations are on account of the victim being a Scheduled Caste. Still further, the finding that the appellant was aware of the caste of the informant is wholly inconsequential as the knowledge does not bar any person to protect his rights by way of a procedure established by law.” 9. It is suggested therein that if in the case of civil nature and SC/ST case has been initiated, the court is competent to quash the proceeding. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.1406 of 2011 and order dated 16.06.2012 passed in the said complaint case so far the petitioners are concerned is set aside. This petition is allowed. 11. The Court has not opined about possession of any of the parties so far the land in question is concerned and the civil suit shall be decided on its own merits.