ORDER : J. SREENIVAS RAO, J. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in SC.SPL.No.256 of 2022 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge-cum-Sessions Court for the trial of SC/ST Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, registered for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case : Respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 04.06.2021 stating that his father, Chintakindi Laxmaiah, purchased the land to an extent of Ac.3.15 gts. in Sy.Nos.32, 33 and 73 from the petitioner through a plain paper (sada bainama) for total sale consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- and he paid the said amount by way of installments and he has been in possession of the said land and operating agricultural operations. He further stated that he and his father approached the petitioner and requested him to execute the registered sale deed, but he refused to register sale deed and that the petitioner filed O.S.No.345 of 2020 before the Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Kalwakurthy against him and his father. On 05.05.2021, he along with some of his villagers went to the petitioner and asked him to execute registered sale deed by showing sada binama and the petitioner stated that he did not alienate the land and abused him in the name of his caste. Basing on the said complaint, F.I.R.No.103 of 2021 was registered against the petitioner. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed charge sheet on 09.09.2021 before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-SC/STs Court at Mahabubnagar and the said Court was transferred to the Court of VII Additional District Judge-cum-Sessions Court for trial of SC/ST, Ranga Reddy District, and renumbered it as SC.SPL.No.256 of 2022. 3. Heard Mr. A. Giridhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. Palle Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mahesh Mamindla, learned counsel, representing Mr. G. Chandra Shekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. 4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner: 4.1. 3. Heard Mr. A. Giridhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. Palle Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mahesh Mamindla, learned counsel, representing Mr. G. Chandra Shekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. 4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner: 4.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed the offence and he has not abused respondent No.2 in the name of his caste and he was falsely implicated by making allegations in the complaint with an intention to harass him and also to dissolve civil disputes pending between them. He further submitted that according to the complaint, the alleged incident occurred on 05.05.2021, however, respondent No.2 lodged the complaint on 04.06.2021, after lapse one month, without giving any reasons for the said delay. 4.2. He further submitted that even according to the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet, the father of respondent No.2 had not initiated any proceedings seeking enforcement of the said sada sale deed by approaching the competent civil Court or before revenue authorities, pursuant to the alleged sada sale deed dated 23.06.1999. The nature of the allegations made in the complaint and charge sheet is purely civil in nature. 4.3. He also submitted that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.345 of 2020 before the Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Amangal in respect of the very same property and wherein ad interim injunction order was granted restraining respondent No.2 and his father from interfering with the suit schedule property and the said suit is pending. 4.4. He further submitted that even according to the allegations made in the complaint and charge sheet, the alleged allegations of abusing respondent No.2 were within the house of the petitioner and respondent No.2 has not specifically mentioned in the complaint that there was any member of the public at the time of the incident in the house, except LW.3, who is a close friend of respondent No.2 and LW.2, who is the father of LW.1, he himself stated that he was not present in the scene of offence. Therefore, the ingredients that words were offered in any place within public view are not made out and the offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act is not attract. Therefore, the ingredients that words were offered in any place within public view are not made out and the offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act is not attract. Hence, the continuation of proceedings is clear abuse of the process of law. 4.5. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments: 1. Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others , (2007) 12 SCC 1 2. Konde Nageshwar Rao v. A. Srirama Chandra Murty and another (Criminal Appeal No.555 of 2018); 3. Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another , (2020) 10 SCC 710 4. Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , (2023) 17 SCC 615 and 5. Sandhya Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and another , 2025 SCC OnLine All 1512 5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2: 5.1. Per contra, learned counsel submitted that the father of respondent No.2 had purchased the property through sada sale deed on 23.06.1999 by paying entire sale consideration and since then, he has been in possession of the subject property. In spite of several demands made by the father of respondent No.2 to execute the registered sale deed, the petitioner postponed the same one pretext or the other. When respondent No.2 along with others went to the house of the petitioner on 05.05.2021 and made a request to execute the sale deed, the petitioner abused respondent No.2 in the name of his caste. He further submitted that the petitioner filed false and frivolous case in O.S.No.345 of 2020 against respondent No.2 and his father, though the petitioner executed the sada sale deed by receiving entire sale consideration. Hence, the ingredients under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and (p) of the Act are attracted against the petitioner. 5.2. He further submitted that whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not, the same will be revealed after full-fledged trial only and the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings in SC.SPL.No.256 of 2022 and the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reiterated the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.2. Analysis: 7. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reiterated the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.2. Analysis: 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner is claiming that he is the owner and possessor of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.3.15 gts in Sy.Nos.32 and 33 situated at Singampally Village of Amangal Mandal and he filed a suit in O.S.No.345 of 2020 before the Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Amangal against respondent No.2 and his father for grant of perpetual injunction restraining defendants therein from interfering with the suit schedule property. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in the said suit, ad interim injunction was granted and the same is continuing till date and the said suit is pending. 8. The record further reveals that respondent No.2 lodged the complaint on 04.06.2021 stating that his father purchased the above said property from the petitioner through sada sale deed dated 23.06.1999 and paid sale consideration by way of installments and he is in possession of the said property. Respondent No.2 along with some villagers went to the house of the petitioner on 05.05.2021 and when he demanded for registration of the above said property by showing papers, the petitioner abused him in the name of his caste and the said incident was reported to the police on 04.06.2021. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the alleged incident was occurred on 05.05.2021, whereas respondent No.2 has lodged complaint after lapse of more than 29 days from the date of the alleged incident and respondent No.2 has not given any reasons for the said delay and only stated the reason that after discussing the matter with family members, he lodged the complaint. 9. It is relevant to mention that in Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu , (2022) 15 SCC 164 , the Hon’ble Apex Court while referring the judgment in Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar , (2002) 9 SCC 147 , held that inordinate and unexplained delay if not reasonably explained can be fatal to the case of prosecution. 10. The record further reveals that as per the complaint, the allegations of abusing respondent No.2 were within the four walls of house of the petitioner. 10. The record further reveals that as per the complaint, the allegations of abusing respondent No.2 were within the four walls of house of the petitioner. It is not the case of respondent No.2 that there was any member of the public at the time of the incident in the house, except LW.3, who is close friend of respondent No.2. LW.2, who is father of LW.1, in his statement, it is stated that he was not present at the scene of offence. LW.3 in his statement, it is stated that in respect of the subject property, a civil suit is pending between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and his father. Taking into consideration the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet, it reveals that the basic ingredient that the words were uttered ‘in any place within public view’ is not made out. 11. In Hitesh Verma supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court 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. 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. 16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is the subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per respondent No.2 herself. Due to dispute, appellant and others were not permitting respondent No.2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. 16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is the subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per respondent No.2 herself. Due to dispute, appellant and others were not permitting respondent No.2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the matter is regarding possession of property pending before the Civil Court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 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” 12. In the above said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the essential ingredient of an offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, namely that the alleged abusive words were uttered “in any place within public view,” was not satisfied where the incident occurred within the four walls of a building and no member of the public was present. The Court further observed that where the dispute between the parties pertains to possession of property and is already the subject of civil proceedings, allegations arising merely from such a dispute would not attract the provisions of the Act unless the victim is shown to have been abused, intimidated, or harassed solely on the ground of belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. 13. In Konde Nageshwar Rao supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “23. In Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra , this Court has emphasized that merely because the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes cannot be the sole ground for prosecution. The offences alleged must have been committed solely on the basis of the victim’s caste status. In Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra , this Court has emphasized that merely because the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes cannot be the sole ground for prosecution. The offences alleged must have been committed solely on the basis of the victim’s caste status. Misuse of the statute to settle personal scores or to harass individuals cannot be permitted if it is apparent. The Court should in such situation be not hesitant to step in and stop the said misuse. Prosecution needs to be quashed at an early stage to prevent undue harassment of the accused where there is clear legal infirmity in the prosecution case, such as the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose an offence or the entire case is a bad faith exercise weaponized to settle personal scores, rather than seeking justice 14. In the above said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relying on Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharasht ra , [ (2000) 3 SCC 557 ] and Ravinder Singh v. Sukhbir Singh , [ (2013) 9 SCC 245 ] , reiterated that mere fact of the complainant belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe cannot by itself be a ground for prosecution under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The alleged offences must be shown to have been committed solely on account of the victim’s caste identity. The Court cautioned that the statute must not be misused to settle personal scores or to harass individuals, and that where such misuse is apparent, the Court should intervene to prevent injustice. It was further held that in cases where the prosecution suffers from a clear legal infirmity such as when the allegations, even if accepted in entirety, do not disclose an offence or indicate mala fide intent to weaponize criminal law, the proceedings should be quashed at the earliest stage to prevent undue harassment of the accused. 15. In Inder Mohan Goswami supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that though the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and with caution. The Court observed that criminal prosecution should not be used as a means of harassment, private vendetta, or to pressurize the accused and quashing is justified only when clearly warranted by law and precedent. 16. The Court observed that criminal prosecution should not be used as a means of harassment, private vendetta, or to pressurize the accused and quashing is justified only when clearly warranted by law and precedent. 16. In Ramesh Chandra Vaishya supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act to be made out, the alleged insult must be caste-specific, intentional, and made in a place within public view. Since the alleged abuse occurred in a private setting without reference to caste or public presence, the essential ingredients of the offence were missing. Finding no credible evidence even for the IPC charges under Sections 323 and 504, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings as an abuse of process. 17. In Sandhya Dwivedi supra, the Allahabad High Court observed that for an offence under the SC/ST Act to be made out, the alleged insult must be caste-specific, intentional, and made in a place within public view. Since the alleged caste- based abuses occurred inside the accused’s house, in the presence of the complainant’s wife and brother-in-law who could not be treated as members of the public the essential ingredient of “public view” was missing. The Court also found that the dispute appeared to arise from institutional management issues rather than caste animosity. Accordingly, it quashed the proceedings under Sections 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act against the applicant while allowing the trial to proceed for the remaining IPC offences. 18. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court supra are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on the ground that there is a property dispute between the parties and respondent No.2 had filed a civil suit in O.S.No.345 of 2020 before the competent Civil Court, wherein interim injunction order was granted in favour of the petitioner restraining respondent No.2 and his father from interfering with the suit schedule property and the said suit is pending and the alleged incident was occurred within the four walls of the house of the petitioner only. It is not the case of respondent No.2 that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives/friends) at the time of the incident in the house, except LW.3, who is close friend of respondent No.2. It is not the case of respondent No.2 that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives/friends) at the time of the incident in the house, except LW.3, who is close friend of respondent No.2. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that basic ingredient that the words were uttered “in any place within the public view” is not made out and the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are not attracted. 19. Insofar as the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 is that the petitioner filed a false suit in O.S.No.345 of 2020 against respondent No.2 and his father, hence, the ingredients under Section 3(1)(p) of the Act is also attracted against the petitioner is not tenable under law on the ground that though basing upon complaint of respondent No.2, Crime No.103 of 2021 was registered for the offences under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(1)(p) of the Act, the Investigating Officer filed final report for the offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act only. 20. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings in SC.SPL.No.256 of 2022 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge-cum-Sessions Court for the trial of SC/ST Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, against the petitioner, would amount to abuse of the process of law and it is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 21. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in SC.SPL.No.256 of 2022 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge-cum-Sessions Court for the trial of SC/ST Cases, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, against the petitioner, are hereby quashed. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are only confined for the purpose of deciding this case. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.