ORDER : Juvvadi Sridevi, J. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in SPL.S.C.No.109 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (for short ‘the learned trial Court’), registered for the offences under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (for short ‘the Act’) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Heard Sri Avadesh Narayana Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Even after service of the notice, none appeared on behalf the respondent No.2. Perused the record. 3(a). The brief facts of the case are that on 02.12.2021, the petitioner-accused, who is the proprietor of Gokul Industries situated at Industrial Park, Sy.No.21/4, Dasnapur, Adilabad, approached the complainant and informed him that the premises of his industry and godown were vacant, and requested the complainant to conduct a New Year event therein. Accordingly, the complainant submitted a representation on 02.12.2021 to the petitioner- accused. In this context, on 03.12.2021, the petitioner- accused issued a letter permitting the complainant to conduct the event on 31.12.2021. Relying upon the said permission, the complainant invested an amount of more than Rs.9,80,000/- towards the arrangements for the event, including engaging an orchestra group from Warangal and Nagpur, and undertaking decoration of the stages with truss, lights, screens, power generators, chairs, barricades, flex boards, etc. However, when the police refused to grant permission for the event, the complainant visited the premises of the petitioner-accused and requested that he be allowed to remove the materials brought by him so that he could shift them to another venue. 3(b). It is alleged that the petitioner-accused grew wild and abused the complainant in filthy language, stating that “Badakau Gand Me Dhum Nahi Hai, Aukath Nahi Hai to Kayku Program Karte Re, Harami Kutte, ek lakh rupee de tabhi saman leke ja, SC Mahar ke bache, Gand Podtu,” and further threatened him with dire consequences of killing him. The complainant pleaded with the petitioner-accused, stating that he had suffered heavy financial loss and was unable to pay any amount. 3(c). The complainant pleaded with the petitioner-accused, stating that he had suffered heavy financial loss and was unable to pay any amount. 3(c). It is alleged that the petitioner-accused made caste-based abuses in the presence of other persons who had gathered there for the New Year event. The incident is stated to have occurred on 31.12.2021 between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. in the presence of more than 25 persons. Hence, the complainant filed the present private complaint. 4(a). Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted that the petitioner has no involvement whatsoever with the alleged offences. It is contended that the police complaint was lodged belatedly on 04.01.2022, after an unexplained delay of three days from the date of the alleged incident, and that the private complaint was subsequently filed on 02.02.2022, nearly one month thereafter, again without any explanation for such delay. It is further submitted that the dispute between the petitioner-accused and the complainant pertains solely to issues arising out of the proposed conduct of the New Year event, which is purely civil in nature. However, the learned trial Court proceeded to take cognizance without appreciating this aspect. It is submitted that the petitioner-accused had never intended to humiliate the complainant on the basis of caste, and that the averments made in the complaint do not disclose the essential ingredients required to attract the alleged offences. 4(b). With the above submissions, while praying to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused, he relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in B.Venkateswaran and others v. P.Bakthavatchalam, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 14 wherein it was held at Paragraph No.3 that: “ 3 . We have heard Shri Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel for the appellants – original accused and the respondent appearing in person. We have also gone through the complaint and considered the allegations in the complaint made against the accused. Having considered the allegations in the complaint and the material on record, it appears that initiation of the criminal proceedings by the respondent against the appellants – original accused for the offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the court and also provision of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It appears that a private dispute was going on between the parties with respect to the illegal construction. As per the allegations in the complaint, the original complainant had purchased the vacant land and constructed the building. It is alleged that adjacent to his house and on the common pathway, the accused have unlawfully encroached upon the pathway and started constructing the temple and thereby have put up illegal construction on his water pipeline, sewage pipeline and EB Cable. In the entire complaint, there are no allegations that the complainant is obstructed and/or interfered with enjoyment of his right on his property deliberately and willfully knowing that complainant belongs to SC/ST. From the material on record, it appears that a civil dispute is converted into criminal dispute and that too for the offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Prior to filing of the complaint, it appears that the temple was already in existence since many years. The complainant, who resides adjacent to the temple, filed WP No. 1272 of 2007 before the Madras High Court. Pursuant to the order passed by the High Court, the Commissioner of Corporation, Chennai conducted the inspection and found that there was absolutely no encroachment by the temple. It appears that thereafter the complainant filed another Writ Petition No. 30326 of 2013 before the Madras High Court. The High Court directed the official respondent to proceed with the inquiry against both the parties. At this stage, it is required to be noted that it was the case on behalf of the original accused that in fact complainant had violated all building norms and had constructed a building in blatant violation of the set-back rules and had also put-up unauthorized construction on the ground floor and first floor. That thereafter, the Temple filed writ petition being No. 3322 of 2017 before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 10.2.2017 stayed the proceedings against temple. It appears that thereafter the complainant filed a private complaint for the aforesaid offences under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. From the aforesaid, it seems that the private civil dispute between the parties is converted into criminal proceedings. It appears that thereafter the complainant filed a private complaint for the aforesaid offences under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. From the aforesaid, it seems that the private civil dispute between the parties is converted into criminal proceedings. Initiation of the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, therefore, is nothing but an abuse of process of law and Court. From the material on record, we are satisfied that no case for the offences under Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out, even prima facie. None of the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are made out and/or satisfied. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion and view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, therefore, is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants deserves to be quashed and set aside.” 4(c). Further, he relied on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Prabhat Kumar Mishra Alias Prabhat Mishra v. State of U.P. , AIR ONLINE 2024 SC 120 wherein it was held at Paragraph Nos.16 and 17 that: “ 16. At the outset, we may take note of the fact that the prosecution of the appellant herein for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is ex facie illegal and unwarranted because it is nowhere the case of the prosecution in the entire charge-sheet that the offence under IPC was committed by the appellant upon the deceased on the basis of his caste. 17. This Court in the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra considered this issue and held as under:- “9. 17. This Court in the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra considered this issue and held as under:- “9. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, commits any offence under the Penal Code, 1860 punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground 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 imprisonment for life and with fine. In the present case, there is no evidence at all to the effect that the appellant committed the offence alleged against him on the ground that the deceased is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. To attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the sine qua non is that the victim should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Penal Code, 1860 is committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises. In that view of the matter, we think, both the trial court and the High Court missed the essence of this aspect. In these circumstances, the conviction under the aforesaid provision by the trial court as well as by the High Court ought to be set aside.” 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition. 6. 6. Having regard to the submissions made on either side and upon a perusal of the material on record, it is evident from the complaint and material placed on record reveals that the dispute between the petitioner-accused and the complainant arose out of arrangements for the proposed New Year event and that the dispute pertains to expenditure incurred by the complainant and his request to shift the materials after police refusal of permission to such event. It is alleged in the complaint by the complainant that the petitioner had abused him stating that “Badakau Gand Me Dhum Nahi Hai, Aukath Nahi Hai to Kayku Program Karte Re, Harami Kutte, ek lakh rupee de tabhi saman leke ja, SC Mahar ke bache, Gand Podtu,”. For which a private complaint has been filed and the learned trial Court after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and other witnesses had taken cognizance against the petitioner- accused vide Order dated 27.12.2023 passed in CFR No.101 of 2022. 7. On a careful scrutiny of the record including the statements of the witnesses recorded by the learned trial Court, it appears that there are significant inconsistencies in the utterances allegedly made by the petitioner-accused as attributed by the complainant and the other witnesses. The complainant as PW1 alleges that the petitioner-accused used the words: “Badakau Gand Me Dhum Nahi Hai, Aukath Nahi Hai to Kayku Program Karte Re, Harami Kutte, ek lakh rupee de tabhi saman leke ja, SC Mahar ke bache, Gand Podtu.” However, the versions of the other witnesses i.e. LW2 to LW6 vary substantially. The complainant as PW1 alleges that the petitioner-accused used the words: “Badakau Gand Me Dhum Nahi Hai, Aukath Nahi Hai to Kayku Program Karte Re, Harami Kutte, ek lakh rupee de tabhi saman leke ja, SC Mahar ke bache, Gand Podtu.” However, the versions of the other witnesses i.e. LW2 to LW6 vary substantially. LW2 states that the petitioner- accused uttered: “harami ke bache, tumhari zaath hi aisi hai, chappal leke martu, mahar ke bache,” while LW3 states that the words used were: “tumhare gaand me dum nahi hai tho kaiku aate programme karne ke liye, harami, kuthe, SC ke bache, gaand phod dalunga tumhara.” LW4 attributes an entirely different version, namely: “badkau lanja koduka, SC Mahar ke bache, gaand me dum nahi hai tho programme kayku karra, Rs.1,00,000/- deke tera saaman leke ja,” whereas LW5 states that the petitioner-accused said: “SC Mahar ke bache, dhed ke bache, aukath nahi hai tho kaiku karthe, kuthe ke bache.” LW6, on the other hand, attributes yet another distinct set of words: “gaandu make laude, make laude, gaand phod dethau, SC Mahar ki aulad, dhed ke bache.” Therefore, the above statements indicates material contradictions and substantial variations, strongly suggesting improvements might have been introduced at a later stage. The alleged words are not consistent either in content or in sequence, raising grave doubt regarding their authenticity. These inconsistencies assume greater significance in light of the unexplained delay of three days in filing the police complaint and nearly one month in filing the private complaint. When the incident allegedly occurred in the presence of more than 25 persons, the failure to furnish a plausible reason for such delay materially creates doubt over the credibility of the prosecution version. 8. It is to be noted that in the present case, the allegations show that the altercation arose solely due to the complainant’s monetary and the dispute regarding the event arrangements, which is at best a private dispute, cannot be allowed to be converted into criminal proceedings under the special statute. The complaint lacks any foundational allegation that the petitioner-accused intentionally targeted or humiliated the complainant on the sole ground of caste. 9. The complaint lacks any foundational allegation that the petitioner-accused intentionally targeted or humiliated the complainant on the sole ground of caste. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. Venkateswaran’s case cited supra, has categorically held that a purely civil dispute cannot be permitted to be converted into criminal proceedings under the Act merely by alleging caste-based abuses, particularly when the essential ingredients of the offence are not disclosed. It appears that the requisite intention of the petitioner-accused to humiliate the complainant on the basis of his caste is absent as the dispute being fundamentally private in nature. 10. Insofar as the offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned, the complaint does not disclose any specific, definite, or actionable threat intended to cause alarm to the complainant. The alleged threats appear to be vague expressions made in the heat of altercation and do not satisfy the statutory requirements of criminal intimidation. It also appears from the cognizance order that the learned trial Court erroneously included Section 420 of IPC, though no element of cheating, inducement, deception, or wrongful gain/loss is even remotely absent in the complaint, which is unsustainable in law. Therefore, as a whole, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and the same is liable to be quashed. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused in SPL.S.C.No.109 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.