JUDGMENT : M.K. THAKKER, J. 1. This is an application filed by the applicants, who are husband and wife-accused Nos.1 and 2 praying to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash the impugned FIR being II-C.R. No. 48 of 2014 registered with Valiya Police Station, District Bharuch. It is further prayed to quash and set aside the charge-sheet filed before the Competent Court on 12.07.2016 being Criminal Case No. 533 of 2016. 2. Brief facts in a capsulized form are as follow: 2.1. The FIR was filed by the complainant, namely, Urmilaben Harisingbhai Rupsingbhai Vasava alleging against the present applicants that on 19.10.2014 when the present applicants arrived near the residence of first informant on motorcycle and shouted by slowing sown the motorcycle as to why the first informant was not coming for agricultural work in their field. It is further alleged in the FIR that while inquiring that the present applicants called the first informant “Bhilada” and thereafter the applicants went to village Mahuza. Again, while returning at 12 O’clock in the noon, present applicants stopped their motorcycle near the residence of the first informant and asked that why they are not coming for agricultural work. 2.2. It is mentioned in the FIR that, at that point of time, first informant and her sister-in-law were mending on the floor, her brother-in-law and the kids were also present there at that time. Again, the applicants had called them as “Dubla” and “Bhilada.” It is alleged that thereafter the applicants had administered threat on the first informant and conveyed that the brother of the applicant No. 1 is an advocate and they would see that the first informant is put behind the bar. By narrating the incident in the FIR, it is alleged that the present applicants had verbally abused the first informant with regard to their caste and thereby they had committed the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the SC & ST Act’ hereinafter). 2.3. During the pendency of the petition, the charge-sheet was filed therefore, draft amendment was filed, which was allowed and the charge-sheet papers were permitted to place on record. 3. Learned advocate, Mr. 2.3. During the pendency of the petition, the charge-sheet was filed therefore, draft amendment was filed, which was allowed and the charge-sheet papers were permitted to place on record. 3. Learned advocate, Mr. Adil Mirza appearing for the complainant submitted that the impugned FIR is registered with a view to harass the applicants and as a counterblast of various FIRs which have been registered by the applicant No. 1 against the husband of the respondent No. 2-original complainant. Learned advocate, Mr. Adil Mirza further submitted that there is a long drawn civil dispute regarding agricultural land owned by the applicant No. 1 and his brothers with their sisters, who fraudulently sold the agricultural land to one Hemaben Bhogilal Vasava during the pendency of the civil litigation i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 21 of 2009. 3.1. It is further argued that civil suit, which is filed by the sister against the applicant No. 1 and other co-owners, the status quo was granted by the learned Civil Court. Despite the order of the status quo was in operation, the purchaser of property had tried to forcibly enter into the disputed land and had committed offence of trespass therefore, two written complaints were given to the concerned police station on 03.06.2014 and 06.06.2014. It is further submitted that pursuant to the complaint, the FIR being I - C.R. No. 45 of 2014 was registered on 09.06.2014 where the husband of the respondent No. 2-original complainant was shown as accused No. 6. Even in both the complaints, which were filed before the concerned police station, name of respondent No. 2 was mentioned as accused No. 6. 3.2. Learned advocate Mr. Adil Mirza has further drawn attention of this Court to the FIR filed on 17.09.2014 under Sections 379, 447 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code by the applicant No. 1, wherein the husband of the respondent No. 2, namely, Harisingbhai Rupsingbhai Vasava was shown as accused No. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Adil Mirza has submitted that with a view to see that the applicants are pressurized and as a counterblast all the complaints, an impugned FIR were filed. Learned advocate Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Adil Mirza has submitted that with a view to see that the applicants are pressurized and as a counterblast all the complaints, an impugned FIR were filed. Learned advocate Mr. Adil Mirza has further submitted that the applicant No. 1 and his brother gave a written complaint to the Police Inspector, Valiya Police Station on 20.06.2014 stating that the respondent No. 2 and her husband had threatened to file a got up and false FIR under the atrocities and other offences. As there is no steps were taken by the police officer, the applicant along with his brother had filed the Special Criminal Application before this Court seeking direction to the effect that the Investigating Agency be directed to investigate the FIR in proper perspective and also sought direction to transfer the investigation to higher agencies. 3.3. This Court had passed an order on 17.10.2014 directing the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bharuch to takeover the investigation from the Police Inspector, Valiya Police Station and directed to file the appropriate report on or before 10.11.2014. The order passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application No. 4403 of 2014 dated 17.10.2014 is a part of the compilation. Thereafter, as the husband of the respondent No. 2 came into the knowledge that now the action would be initiated against the wrong doers therefore, the impugned FIR was filed to pressurize and harass the applicants. 3.4. Learned advocate Mr. Adil Mirza further submitted that looking to the charge-sheet papers, names of four witnesses were mentioned in the charge-sheet, namely, Smt. Urmilaben Harising Rupsing Vasava the complainant, Harisig Rupsing Vasava-husband of the complainant, Chandrasing Rupsing Vasava brother-in-law of the complainant and Tinaben Chandrasing Rupsing Vasava-sister-in-law of the applicants. Learned advocate Mr. Adil Mirza further submitted that no statement of independent person was taken therefore, it transpires that the FIR is false and fabricated and as a counterblast the impugned FIR filed. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. M.D. Mehta submitted that as the charge-sheet is submitted to the competent court after gathering sufficient material against the present applicants, at this stage, interfering with the proceedings would be unwarranted and she therefore prayed to dismiss the present application. 5. Learned advocate Mr. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. M.D. Mehta submitted that as the charge-sheet is submitted to the competent court after gathering sufficient material against the present applicants, at this stage, interfering with the proceedings would be unwarranted and she therefore prayed to dismiss the present application. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Kinariwala appearing for the respondent No. 2-original complainant had vehemently opposed the application by submitting that there may be an FIR against the husband of the respondent No. 2, but where the specific allegation with regard to atrocities is made against the present applicant and in the charge-sheet also statements of witnesses were recorded, interference, at this stage, would amount to curtail the proceedings which is pending before the Court of law. Learned advocate Mr. Kinariwala further submitted that there is a specific allegation in the FIR with regard to abuse on the caste of the complainant which is required to be tried by the competent court and therefore, at this stage, this application for quashing of the FIR is not required to be entertained and prays to dismiss this application. 6. Having considered the arguments canvassed by the learned advocates for respective parties, it transpires from the record that there is ongoing dispute between the parties and for that various FIRs and applications were filed by the applicants against the number of accused including the husband of the respondent No. 2. On perusing the order passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application NO. 4403 of 2014, it transpires that when this Court has issued direction directing Assistant Superintendent of Police, Bharuch to takeover the charge of investigation and proceed in accordance with law on 17.10.2014 immediately, as a counterblast this FIR was lodged on 19.10.2014 i.e. after two days of the order passed by this Court. Perusing the charge-sheet papers, which are part of this application, it transpires that in the detail of witnesses, two persons’ name were mentioned as panch witnesses and four persons’ name were mentioned as witnesses. Considering the name of the witnesses, it transpires that all are the family members of the respondent No. 2-complainant. Considering the place mentioned in the FIR, it transpires that the incident took place near the house of the respondent No. 2. 7. Offence alleged in the FIR under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC & ST Act is prior to the amendment of 2018. Considering the place mentioned in the FIR, it transpires that the incident took place near the house of the respondent No. 2. 7. Offence alleged in the FIR under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC & ST Act is prior to the amendment of 2018. The provision under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act is reproduced as under: “(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe: *** *** *** (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.” Considering the provision, it transpires that offence which was committed was near the house of the respondent No. 2, where presence of family members is there and there is no any other witnesses other than complainant and her family members. Neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet papers refers the presence of any individual member of public at the place of occurrence. 8. This Court has also considered the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 469, wherein this Court has observed as under: “17. The first question that calls for an answer is whether it was at a place within public view that the appellant hurled caste related abuses at the complainant with an intent to insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate him. From the charge-sheet dated 21 st January, 2016 filed by the I.O. it appears that the prosecution would seek to rely on the evidence of three witnesses to drive home the charge against the appellant of committing offences under sections 323 and 504, IPC and 3(1)(x), SC/ST Act. These three witnesses are none other than the complainant, his wife and their son. Neither the first F.I.R. nor the charge-sheet refers to the presence of a fifth individual (a member of the public) at the place of occurrence (apart from the appellant, the complainant, his wife and their son). Since the utterances, if any, made by the appellant were not “in any place within public view”, the basic ingredient for attracting section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was missing/absent. Since the utterances, if any, made by the appellant were not “in any place within public view”, the basic ingredient for attracting section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was missing/absent. We, therefore, hold that at the relevant point of time of the incident (of hurling of caste related abuse at the complainant by the appellant), no member of the public was present. 18. That apart, assuming arguendo that the appellant had hurled caste related abuses at the complainant with a view to insult or humiliate him, the same does not advance the case of the complainant any further to bring it within the ambit of section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. We have noted from the first F.I.R. as well as the charge- sheet that the same makes no reference to the utterances of the appellant during the course of verbal altercation or to the caste to which the complainant belonged, except for the allegation/observation that caste-related abuses were hurled. The legislative intent seems to be clear that every insult or intimidation for humiliation to a person would not amount to an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act unless, of course, such insult or intimidation is targeted at the victim because of he being a member of a particular Scheduled Caste or Tribe. If one calls another an idiot (bewaqoof) or a fool (murkh) or a thief (chor) in any place within public view, this would obviously constitute an act intended to insult or humiliate by user of abusive or offensive language. Even if the same be directed generally to a person, who happens to be a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, per se, it may not be sufficient to attract section 3(1)(x) unless such words are laced with casteist remarks. Even if the same be directed generally to a person, who happens to be a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, per se, it may not be sufficient to attract section 3(1)(x) unless such words are laced with casteist remarks. Since section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars invocation of the court’s jurisdiction under section 438, Cr.P.C. and having regard to the overriding effect of the SC/ST Act over other laws, it is desirable that before an accused is subjected to a trial for alleged commission of offence under section 3(1)(x), the utterances made by him in any place within public view are outlined, if not in the F.I.R. (which is not required to be an encyclopaedia of all facts and events), but at least in the charge-sheet (which is prepared based either on statements of witnesses recorded in course of investigation or otherwise) so as to enable the court to ascertain whether the charge sheet makes out a case of an offence under the SC/ST Act having been committed for forming a proper opinion in the conspectus of the situation before it, prior to taking cognisance of the offence. Even for the limited test that has to be applied in a case of the present nature, the charge-sheet dated 21st January, 2016 does not make out any case of an offence having been committed by the appellant under section 3(1)(x) warranting him to stand a trial.” 9. Another question that would require to be considered is that whether criminal proceedings against the applicant should be allowed to be taken over in view of the charge for the offence punishable under Sections 504 of the Indian Penal Code requires following ingredients: (a) intentional insult. (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted. (c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. 10. Law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Fiona Shrikhande and Another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013 (3) GLH 107 in which Para 13 is observed as under: “13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients viz. 10. Law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Fiona Shrikhande and Another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013 (3) GLH 107 in which Para 13 is observed as under: “13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients viz. (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted and (c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC.” 11. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that in absence of ingredients of intentional insult of to such a degree that it could provoke a person to break public peace or committee any offence to continuation of proceedings would be miscarriage of justice. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this application is allowed. The impugned FIR being II - C.R. No. 48 of 2014 registered with Valiya Police Station, District Bharuch is quashed with all consequential proceedings. Rule is made absolute accordingly.