ORDER : K. Lakshman, J. Heard Mr. N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State. Despite affording ample opportunity, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. 2. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in Crime No.104 of 2014 of Kanagal Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section - 504 of IPC and Section - 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Casts and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Act, 1989’). 3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.1 in the aforesaid crime. As per the complaint of respondent No.2, the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein are as follows; i) Complainant belongs to Madiga Community; ii) The petitioner herein, MLA, addressed the General Body Meeting held at MPDO Office at Kanagal without following protocol and not greeted him, for which the Sarpanchas and MPTCs questioned the MLA, where the MLA insulted him intentionally as he is dalith MPP only and uttered Cheppu To Kodutha Emi Chesukuntaro Chesukondi in the presence of the Members; iii) The MLA again insulted him by giving oral instructions to MPDO and ZPTC by violating the protocol and opened the RWS Sump by not inviting him. Hence, he requested the police to take necessary legal action against MLA/ZPTC/MPDO. 4. Basing on the aforesaid written complaint, the police have registered a case in Crime No.104 of 2014 against the petitioner herein and others for the aforesaid offences and took up for investigation. 5. Mr. N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him and a false case was foisted against the petitioner with political rivalry only with an intention to harass him and to defame his reputation. i) He would further submit that the contents of the complaint lacks the ingredients of Sections - 504 of IPC and 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989. The petitioner did not insult or intimidate the de facto complainant as alleged in the complaint. Therefore, continuation of proceedings in the aforesaid crime is nothing but an abuse of process of law and, therefore, he sought to quash the proceedings in the said crime against the petitioner. The petitioner did not insult or intimidate the de facto complainant as alleged in the complaint. Therefore, continuation of proceedings in the aforesaid crime is nothing but an abuse of process of law and, therefore, he sought to quash the proceedings in the said crime against the petitioner. ii) In support of the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions in All Cargo Movers v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain, (2007) 14 SCC 776 ; State of Karnataka v. M.Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89 ; Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 966 ; Asmathunisa v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 11 SCC 259 ; Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710 ; Ravella Padmavathi v. The State of Telangana MANU/TL/0908/2022; Khuman Singh v. State of M.P., (2020) 18 SCC 763 ; Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 ; Vikram Johar v. State of U.P., (2019) 14 SCC 207 ; Hiralal v. State of U.P. (2009) 11 SCC 89 and Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 12 SCC 1 6. On the other hand, Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would submit that prima facie, the complaint discloses the ingredients of Section - 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989 and so also Section - 504 of IPC. There is neither political rivalry nor false implication of the petitioner as alleged by him. The Investigating Officer has to investigate into the allegations levelled against the petitioner and it is premature to consider the request of the petitioner. 7. In view of the said rival contentions, it is apt to extract Section - 504 of IPC. “504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.—Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” 8. In view of the above, it is clear that the following ingredients are essential to attract the aforesaid offence. i. There must be an intention in the mind of the accused to insult or provoke the other person; ii. In view of the above, it is clear that the following ingredients are essential to attract the aforesaid offence. i. There must be an intention in the mind of the accused to insult or provoke the other person; ii. The intention of the accused person should be of such a nature that it is likely to insult and provoke the other person, thus the nature of intention matters; iii. The knowledge of the result of such provocation and insult should already be there in the mind of the accused; and iv. So the knowledge and the intention of the provocation should be there in the mind of the accused which should be co-related with breaking the public peace and harmony. This is also a secondary ingredient essential for completing committing an offense under section 504 IPC; 9. It is also apt to refer to Section - 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989, and the same is as follows; “Section 3. Punishments for offences atrocities. (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-- (a) to (w) xxxxx (x) corrupts or fouls the water of any spring, reservoir or any other source ordinarily used by members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used;” 10. Therefore, as per the aforesaid provision, the victim should be a member of caste and the accused should be a non-member. There should be corrupt or fouls the water of any spring, reservoir or any other source ordinarily used by members of the scheduled castes or the schedule tribes so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used. The contents of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 lacks the aforesaid ingredients. 11. Now, coming to the facts of the case on hand, in the complaint dated 20.07.2014, it is alleged by respondent No.2 - complainant that he being the MLA, the petitioner addressed the general body meeting held at MPDO Office at Kanagal without following the protocol, not greeted him for which the Sarpanchas and MPTCs questioned him. The petitioner insulted him intentionally as he is dalith MPP only and uttered Chepputo Kodutha, EMI Chesukuntaro Chesukondi in the presence of the Members. The petitioner insulted him intentionally as he is dalith MPP only and uttered Chepputo Kodutha, EMI Chesukuntaro Chesukondi in the presence of the Members. He further alleged that the petitioner again insulted him by giving oral instructions to MPDO and ZPTC by violating the protocol and opened the RWS Sump by not inviting him. Though the complainant alleged that he was insulted by the MLA in the presence of Members, he has not mentioned the names of such Members. However, at the bottom of the complaint, he has mentioned some of the names terming them as ‘witnesses; public representatives’. The said witnesses are none other than the MPP, MPTCs and Sarpanches. Admittedly, respondent No.2 - complainant is MPP. 12. In Fiona Shrikhande (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under; “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.” 13. Thus, as per the contents of the complaint, it is clear that the persons whose names are mentioned terming them as ‘witnesses or public representatives from various political parties. The complainant held the post of MPP. The complainant did not mention the name of any independent witness. Therefore, the contents of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 dated 20.07.2014 lacks the ingredients of offence under Section - 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989. 14. In the light of the above, the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 against the petitioner herein does not disclose any offence whatsoever under Section - 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989 as held by the Apex Court in Hitesh Verma (supra). 15. As far as Section - 504 of IPC is concerned, as already discussed above, the contents of the complaint lacks the essential ingredients of Section - 504 of IPC. 15. As far as Section - 504 of IPC is concerned, as already discussed above, the contents of the complaint lacks the essential ingredients of Section - 504 of IPC. There is no mention in the complaint that the petitioner had an intention in his mind to insult or provoke the complainant, and that such an intention should be of such a nature that it is likely to insult and provoke the complainant. 16. In Vikram Johar (supra) , the Apex Court held that in the absence of ingredients under Sections - 504 and 506 of IPC, continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law and ends of justice and requires that proceedings to be quashed. In the case on hand also, essential ingredients of Section - 504 of IPC are also absent. Thus, continuation of proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 17. As discussed above, the complaint does not disclose any offence whatsoever. Therefore, prosecution of the aforesaid offences is liable to be quashed as held by the Apex Court in Hiralal (supra). Without considering the said aspects, the police, Kanagal have registered a case in Crime No.104 of 2014. It is an abuse of process of law. Thus, the proceedings in Crime No.104 of 2014 of Kanagal Police Station against the petitioner herein are liable to be quashed. 18. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.104 of 2014 of Kanagal Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section - 504 of IPC and Section - 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989 are hereby quashed against the petitioner herein - Accused No.1 only. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition shall stand closed.