ORDER ON BOARD : 1. The petitioners have filed the present Cr.M.P. under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR No. 62/2021 registered against them at Police Station - Mahasamund, District –Mahasamund (C.G.) for commission of offence under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC & Sections 3(1) n /k & 3(2)(v) d of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the SC/ST Act”) (which has been subsequently added in the FIR) as well as subsequent charge- sheet submitted before the learned Special Judge (ST/SC) Mahasamund on 13.12.2022, present petitioners namely Ramkumar Agrawal, Radha Agrawal, Garima Agrawal & Reema Agrawal restraining the construction, have broken the wall and started abusing and assaulted the complainant which has caused injuries on her right wrist, left shoulder and face. It is also case of the prosecution that the petitioners have also committed marpit with her sister-in-law (Jethani) namely Bharti Sonwani. The incident was seen by Gajanand Sahu & Saddam Tandon. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, the FIR has been registered against the present petitioners for commission of offence as aforestated. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that neither the petitioners nor respondents are owners of the property, it is private land, which is being used by the complainant as their way, therefore, the complainant has no locus standi in interfering with peaceful possession of the property. He would further submit that the civil suit was also filed before the trial Court where law of torts has been filed against the complainant. He would further submit that the complainant has also filed complaint against the petitioners before Judicial Magistrate First Class for causing loss of the property owned by the complainant to the tune of Rs. 2234/- which is also still pending. He would further submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the crime in question as from perusal of the FIR, it is quite vivid that no offence is made out against the petitioners and would pray for quashing of the aforesaid FIR as well as the subsequent charge- sheet filed against them. 3. He would further submit that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the crime in question as from perusal of the FIR, it is quite vivid that no offence is made out against the petitioners and would pray for quashing of the aforesaid FIR as well as the subsequent charge- sheet filed against them. 3. On the other hand learned State counsel would submit that there is sufficient material placed on record regarding prima facie establishing commission of offence as afore-stated, therefore, at this juncture, whether the property used by the petitioners is owned by them, is a matter of evidence which can be decided after adducing evidence before the trial Court and the same cannot be a ground for quashing of the entire FIR. He would further submit that the FIR has rightly been registered against the petitioners and would pray for dismissal of the petition. 4. In pursuance of direction earlier issued by this Court, respondent No. 2- Ms. Kalpana Verma, (Dy.S.P.) the then SDO (P), Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund present posted as C.S.P. Mana, Raipur & respondent No. 3- Mr. Tikaram Sarthi, Assistant Sub-Inspector, City Kotwali, Mahasamund are present before this Court along with their counsel Mr. Anurag Verma and would support the case of the prosecution. They would submit that prima facie there is involvement of the petitioners in commission of offence and the same cannot be quashed by filing petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and would pray for dismissal of the petition. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 6 supporting the case of the prosecution would submit that there is sufficient material against the petitioner as such, it cannot be quashed at this juncture and would pray for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 7. The submission of the petitioners is that the land in dispute is private land and the same is being used by them as their way and no incident has been taken place, is the matter of evidence which cannot be decided at this juncture as such, regarding commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC are matter of evidence and the same has to be decided by the learned trial Court. So far as examining the offence registered against the petitioners for commission of offence punishable Sections 3(1) n /k & 3(2)(v) d of the SC/ST Act is concerned, it is expedient for this Court to extract the aforesaid Sections which read as under:- “Section 3(1) n /k - (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; (s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view; Section 3(2)(v) d - (va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine.” 8. From perusal of the aforesaid sections of the SC/ST Act, it has to be examined that whether the words uttered by the petitioners fall within the ambit of humiliating the person belonging to a particular community. 9. The record of the case would show that the FIR was lodged on 13.02.2021 wherein there is no whisper about words used by the petitioners against the complainant which may attract offence under the SC/ST Act. After 7-8 days of lodging of FIR, Sections 3(1) n /k & 3(2)(v) d of the SC/ST Act have been added and there is contradiction in the FIR, the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.PC. and in her supplementary statement. 10. Petitioner in person would submit that the provisions of Section 3(1) n /k & 3(2)(v) d of the SC/ST Act would be attracted only when the offence for which the applicants are being sought to be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code falls in the Schedule of the S.C./S.T. Act. and in her supplementary statement. 10. Petitioner in person would submit that the provisions of Section 3(1) n /k & 3(2)(v) d of the SC/ST Act would be attracted only when the offence for which the applicants are being sought to be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code falls in the Schedule of the S.C./S.T. Act. He further submitted that the alleged incident dated 13.12.2021 was not in public view, there was nothing in the statement of respondent No. 2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to indicate that the alleged incident was committed with her in public view and only knowing the fact that victim belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and in absence of there being evidence to this effect, the criminal prosecution of the applicant under Section 3(1) n /k & 3(2)(v) d of the SC/ST Act would be absolutely uncalled for. He further argued that the Investigating Officer in the present case has submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioners in an absolutely mechanical and blindfolded manner without appreciating the evidence on record as well as the ingredients of the offences for which the petitioners were was being sought to be charge-sheeted is not available on record. He further submitted that the court below which has passed the cognizance order against the applicants has committed manifest error and illegality by taking cognizance against the applicants under those offences with respect to which there was absolutely no credible evidence on record, as such, the proceedings arising out of the charge sheet on account of the issuance of the order of cognizance are a gross abuse of the process of the court. 11. Before adverting to the merits of the matter, this Court would like to see whether the allegations made in the FIR against the applicants and the statements given by the complainant when read together, discloses the commission of offence under the ST/SC Act or whether prima facie no case is made out against the applicants. 12. It is well settled position of law that the menace of filing false and frivolous cases under the ST/SC Act is writ large. Various High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court have taken very strict view of the same. This menace has been well considered by various High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. It is well settled position of law that the menace of filing false and frivolous cases under the ST/SC Act is writ large. Various High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court have taken very strict view of the same. This menace has been well considered by various High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2018) 6 SCC 454 has held as under :- “72. …….The underprivileged need to be protected against any atrocities to give effect to the constitutional ideals. The Atrocities Act has been enacted with this objective. At the same time, the said Act cannot be converted into a charter for exploitation or oppression by any scrupulous person or by police for extraneous reasons against other citizens as has been found on several occasions in decisions referred to above. Any harassment of an innocent, irrespective of case or religion, is against the guarantee of the Constitution. This Court must enforce such a guarantee . Law should not result in caste hatred…….” 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts had time and again dealt with problems where the litigant/complainant having filed false, frivolous and vexatious litigation to wreak vengeance and those have come out heavily to curb the serious problem. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. BuddhiKota Subbarao vs. K. Parasaran & others reported in (1996) 5 SCC 530 has criticized the practice of frivolous petitions. The Supreme Court observed as under:- “No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived frivolous petition.” 14. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its latest judgment in case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & another [CRA No...../2023 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1249/2023] decided on 19.07.2023 reported in 2023 INC 569 wherein the provisions of the SC/ST has come up for consideration, has quashed the FIR as in absence of ingredients of intentionally insult of such a degree that it could provoke a person to break public peace or commit any other offence is available on record. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under:- “16. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under:- “16. The first F.I.R., registered at the instance of the complainant, is silent about the place of occurrence and who, being a member of the public, was present when the appellant is alleged to have hurled caste related abuses at the complainant. However, on a reading of the second F.I.R. registered at the behest of the appellant, it appears that the incident took place at the house of the appellant. 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 21st 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. 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. 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. Since section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars invocation of the court’s jurisdiction under section 438, Cr.PC 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.” 15. 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.” 15. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that regarding commission of offence under Sections 3(1) n /k & 3(2) (v) d of the SC/ST Act, there is no whisper about the commission of offence under the SC/ST Act as the complainant in his complaint recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. has not uttered any word that petitioners have abused her by insulting knowing that she belongs to scheduled caste and no material has also been collected by the prosecution to rope the applicants under the Atrocity Act. The complainant in her statement recorded under Section 161 has not stated anything but in her supplementary statement which was recorded on 24.08.2021 has also stated the word which again cannot suggest that the words are alleged to have been used by the applicants knowing the fact that she belongs to SC/ST to insult her, as such it does not fall within the ambit of offence under the SC/ST Atrocity Act, 1989. From perusal of the FIR also, it is quite vivid that there is no whisper about commission of offence by the petitioners against the complainant to attract the provisions of SC/ST Act. 16. Accordingly, the offence registered against the petitioners regarding commission of offence under Sections 3(1) n /k & 3(2) (v) d of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is quashed. 17. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits of the case so far as offence under Section 294, 323, 506 and 34, it is for the trial Court to decide the offence registered against the petitioner under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC. The trial Court is directed to decide the same in accordance with law without being influenced from any of the observation made by this Court while deciding the instant petition. 18. In view of the above, the instant petition is partly allowed by quashing the charges under Sections 3(1) n /k & 3(2)(v) d of the SC/ST Act, 1989.