ORDER : The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') praying to quash the further proceedings in Crime No.256 of 2022 of Devadurga Police Station, Raichur, for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and Section 3(i)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for short, ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’] pending on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Raichur. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State, the learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant and perused the material on record. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 30-9-2022 between 2.30 p.m. and 3.00 p.m., at the building near Devadurga Shankarabandi Cross, C.W.2-Mallesh Badiger, friend of the complainant, asked the complainant to meet the petitioner and to bring amount of Rs.1,00,000/-from him, which he owes to C.W.2. During the said period, there was telephonic conversation between C.W.2 and the accused and in that telephonic conversation, it is alleged that, the petitioner abused the complainant by taking up his caste, intentionally insulted him to provoke his breach of peace and made criminal intimidation to eliminate him. Hence, on 12-10-2022, the complainant lodged a complaint. 4. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent-Police registered a case in Crime No.256 of 2022 for the aforesaid offences. The Investigating Officer conducted investigation and filed the charge-sheet. The trial Court soon after receipt of the charge-sheet, took cognizance of the offences under Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and issued process against the petitioner. Taking exception to the same, the petitioner has filed this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the allegation made against the petitioner is afterthought so as to falsely implicate him, there is delay of twelve days in lodging the complaint, but delay has not been properly explained by the complainant, the dispute is with regard to recovery of money which was entrusted to C.W.2-Mallesh Badiger. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the allegation made against the petitioner is afterthought so as to falsely implicate him, there is delay of twelve days in lodging the complaint, but delay has not been properly explained by the complainant, the dispute is with regard to recovery of money which was entrusted to C.W.2-Mallesh Badiger. 6. Learned counsel places reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of HITESH VERMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2020 SC 5584 , Criminal Petition No.4384 of 2023 dated 12-7-2023, Criminal Petition No.9028 of 2021 dated 4-8-2023 and Criminal Petition No.2171 of 2016 dated 23-6-2022. 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that there is prima-facie material against the petitioner to attract the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The petitioner intentionally insulted the complainant to provoke his breach of peace and also made criminal intimidation to eliminate him. He further submits that now the investigation is completed and the trial Court has taken cognizance. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. On perusal of the complaint, the complainant made allegations that on 30-9-2022 between 2.30 p.m. and 3.00 p.m., the petitioner abused the complainant by taking up his caste, intentionally insulted him to provoke his breach of peace and made criminal intimidation to eliminate him. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident alleged to have been taken place in the house of complainant and it is not at public place. Hence, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of HITESH VERMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2020 SC 5584 , wherein at paragraph Nos.15 and 18, it has held as under: "15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh, it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet. XXX XXX XXX 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." 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.4384 of 2023 dated 12-7-2023. In the aforesaid decision, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has opined that the case is of purely civil in nature as there was civil litigation between the complainant and the accused and in that matter, a delivery warrant was issued against the complainant. Therefore, the judgment debtor lodged a complaint against the decree holder and in that view of the matter, the Co-ordinate Bench by invoking the ratio laid down in the case of Hitesh Varma (supra) quashed the proceedings. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon another judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.9028 of 2021 dated 4-8-2023. On perusal of the above judgment, the Coordinate Bench of this Court quashed the proceedings holding that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, however it has been given a criminal texture, so as to circumvent the petitioners from claiming the rent from the de facto complainant. On perusal of the above judgment, the Coordinate Bench of this Court quashed the proceedings holding that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, however it has been given a criminal texture, so as to circumvent the petitioners from claiming the rent from the de facto complainant. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon another judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.2171 of 2016 dated 23-6-2022. In the above decision, there was property dispute between the parties and the parties were litigating over the possession of suit schedule property and on that count, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court quashed the criminal proceedings. 13. In the instant case, the disputed question of fact, whether the petitioner insulted the complainant or not and whether the alleged incident took place in the house or in a public place, is a matter of trial. Hence, the disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. At this stage, only prima-facie case has to be seen and this ratio is laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/S. NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918 . 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case SAU. KAMAL SHIVAJI POKARNEKAR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS in Criminal Appeal No.255 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7513 of 2014] has observed that criminal complaints cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the allegations made out by the complainant are civil in nature. 15. In the instant case, the complainant has made allegations that the petitioner abused him in filthy language by taking up his caste name, intentionally insulted him to provoke his breach of peace and also made criminal intimidation to eliminate him and the said conversation has been recorded in the mobile phone and in support of his complaint, he has also submitted the Compact Disk, which shows that there is prima-facie material to try against the petitioner. At this juncture, the petitioner has not made out any case to invoke Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. At this juncture, the petitioner has not made out any case to invoke Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. It is clarified that any observation made in this petition is only for disposal of this petition and the trial Court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this petition.