ORDER : M. NAGAPRASANNA, J. The 1 st petitioner a Company by name Seven Hills Developers and Traders and other individuals are at the doors of this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.373 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 427 , 143, 147, 149, 323, and 447 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(f) and 3 (1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act’ for short). 2. Heard Sri Ravi B.Naik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri S.Yathiraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - The 2 nd respondent the complainant. The 2 nd respondent sold certain agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.108/1 in Yelahanka Village and Hobli, Bangalore North Additional Taluk, Bengaluru by way of a registered sale deed dated 24-09-2021 and is said to have put the 1 st petitioner/company in possession thereof. The 1 st petitioner/company which is said to be put in possession, is in possession of the property as on the date of registration of complaint as well. After the sale of the property, it is the averment in the petition that the complainant and co-vendors repeatedly started to cause hindrance in the possession of the 1 st petitioner and, therefore, the 1 st petitioner registers a complaint against the 2 nd respondent and several others on 09-09-2023 on the allegation that the 2 nd respondent and others attempted to trespass into the property of accused No.1/1 st petitioner. The said crime is being investigated into. The 2 nd respondent and others register a civil suit in O.S.No.5367 of 2023 seeking declaration and consequential relief of cancellation of sale deed entered into between the parties on 24- 09-2021. There is also a writ petition in W.P.No.17575 of 2021 preferred with regard to revenue entries. After instituting these proceedings and immediately after the 1 st petitioner registering the crime, the impugned complaint comes to be registered against the petitioners on 10-09-2023 for the afore-quoted offences. This becomes a crime in Crime No.373 of 2023. Registration of crime drives the petitioners immediately to this Court in the subject petition. After instituting these proceedings and immediately after the 1 st petitioner registering the crime, the impugned complaint comes to be registered against the petitioners on 10-09-2023 for the afore-quoted offences. This becomes a crime in Crime No.373 of 2023. Registration of crime drives the petitioners immediately to this Court in the subject petition. This Court grants an interim order of stay of investigation, on a prima facie opinion that registration of crime was an abuse of the process of law. Applications are filed both by the complainant and the State seeking vacation of the interim order. The matter is heard. 4. The learned senior counsel Sri Ravi B.Naik representing the petitioners would vehemently contend that a sale deed is executed between the complainant and the 1 st petitioner. The sale consideration/amounts are transferred by the 1 st petitioner in favour of the complainant through RTGS. The documents of such transfer are appended to the petition. The grievance of the 2 nd respondent/complainant appears to be that she would have got more amount if she had waited for some time and, therefore, to cause trouble, instituted a civil suit seeking cancellation of sale deed and declaration and on the same breath seek to register the impugned complaint on the ground that petitioners have hurled abuses against the complainant in a public place and therefore, it becomes an offence under the Act. They have trespassed into the property allegedly belonging to the 1 st petitioner and therefore they have committed offences under Section 427 and 447 of the IPC . 5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the 2 nd respondent/complainant would submit that though the amounts are seen to be transferred through RTGS, but no amount has come to the account of the complainant. The complainant and others have been cheated and, therefore, they have filed the civil suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed. The complaint in the lis is with regard to hurling of abuses and trespass into the property belonging to the complainant. The learned counsel would submit that the crime is registered only 2 days prior to the filing of the petition. The matter must be investigated in the least and, therefore, seeks dismissal of the petition. 6. The complaint in the lis is with regard to hurling of abuses and trespass into the property belonging to the complainant. The learned counsel would submit that the crime is registered only 2 days prior to the filing of the petition. The matter must be investigated in the least and, therefore, seeks dismissal of the petition. 6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would also toe lines of the learned counsel representing the complainant to contend that the matter is still at the stage of crime and, therefore, the complaint must be permitted to be taken to its logical conclusion. All remedies in law are still available to the petitioner at a later point in time in the event the Police would file charge sheet against the petitioners. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts though not in dispute would require graphic reiteration. Smt. Subbamma and others were the owners of agricultural land in Sy.No.108/1. The owners of the land including the complainant execute a sale deed on 24-09-2021 in favour of the 1 st petitioner/Company and all the amounts/consideration that is depicted in the sale deed is transferred through RTGS. The sale deed captures every transaction through RTGS to the respective accounts of the vendors. Immediately after execution of the sale deed, a writ petition comes to be filed in Writ Petition No.17572 of 2021 praying that revenue entries shall not be transferred. After about two years a civil suit comes to be filed in O.S.No.5367 of 2023 seeking the following prayer: “(i) To declare that the Plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the Suit Schedule Properties. After about two years a civil suit comes to be filed in O.S.No.5367 of 2023 seeking the following prayer: “(i) To declare that the Plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the Suit Schedule Properties. (ii) To declare that the alleged Sale Deed dated 24.09.2021 in favour of the 1 st Defendant is null and void with respect to suit schedule ‘A’ Property; (iii) To declare that the alleged deed of exchange dated 24-09-2021 in favour of Defendants 2 to 4 is also null and void with respect to suit schedule ‘B’ property; (iv) Consequently decree the above suit for cancellation of the alleged Sale Deed dated 24-09-2021 vide document No.BYP-1-05927/2022-23 of Book No.1, stored in CD No.BYPD1200 registered in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru, in favour of the 1 st defendant and also cancel the alleged Exchange Deed dated 24-09-2021 vide Document No.BYP-1-05913/2022- 23 of Book No.1, stored in CD No.BYPD1200 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru in favour of defendants No.2 to 4. (v) Consequently direct the concerned Sub-Registrar to remove the entry in the Encumbrance Certificate with respect to Sale Deed dated 24-09-2021 and also exchange deed dated 24-09-2021 with respect to suit schedule Properties; (vi) To direct the Defendants to return all original documents pertaining to suit Schedule ‘A’ & ‘B’ Properties to the Plaintiffs; (vii) For Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents and servants from interfering with the Plaintiffs lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. (viii) And grant such other relief/reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case, including costs in the interest of justice and equity.” The complainant along with others seek a declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and to declare the sale deed dated 24-09-2021 as null and void and to declare a deed of exchange entered into between the 1 st petitioner and the complainant and others on the same day also as null and void. They also seek a decree of cancellation of the alleged sale deed entered into on 24-09-2021 and all the entries made in the Sub- Registrar’s office on the same date. They further seek a direction against the petitioners/defendants to return original documents pertaining to the suit schedule property. 9. They also seek a decree of cancellation of the alleged sale deed entered into on 24-09-2021 and all the entries made in the Sub- Registrar’s office on the same date. They further seek a direction against the petitioners/defendants to return original documents pertaining to the suit schedule property. 9. The petitioners on the ground that the complainant and others are causing severe obstruction to the construction that was sought to be put up by the petitioners, make a representation to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bangalore North East on 25-08-2023. Thereafter the 1 st petitioner also files a complaint before the jurisdictional police on 09-09-2023 with regard to the trespass and obstruction on 09-09-2023. The complaint so registered reads as follows: “Date: 09-09-2023 From: M/s Seven Hills Developers & Traders Private Limited, No.12, “NIRMAL NIVAS”, 4 th Cross, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru-560 009. To: The Inspector of Police, Yelahanka Police Station, Bangalore. Sir, Sub: Complaint against Smt. Muniyamma and others for criminal trespass in our Property bearing Sy.No.108/1, measuring 01 acre 33 Guntas, Yelahanka, Bangalore. --- With reference to the above, this is to bring to your kind notice that M/s Seven Hills Developers and Traders Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as SHDPL ) is the absolute owner in lawful possession of the land measuring 01 Acre 33 Guntas in Sy.No.108/1 of Yelahanka Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Additional Taluk, hereinafter referred to as the Schedule Property. We have purchased the aforesaid property under the registered Sale Deed dated 24-09-2021 and we are in lawful possession. We were about to put up the compound wall securing our property. However, on 08-09-2023, when our civil work force were about to take up the work, we were interrupted mercilessly by Sri Venkataramanna M S/o Muniyappa, Sri Srinivasa M S/o Muniyappa, Sri Chinnappa husband of Smt. Subbamma, Sri Aravind S/o Chinnappa, Arjun C S/o Chinnappa, Sri Venkatesh S/o Papamma, V.Sagar S/o Venkatesh, Sri Abhishek Son in law of Venkatesh, Sri Nagaraj son-in-law of Papamma, Abhishek Son of Nagaraj and manhandled our persons. We state that we are the law-abiding citizens and lawful owners of the Schedule Property. We cannot resist the illegal and unauthorized action of the above said people in detail making frivolous claims except with the kind interference of this Authority we are left un protected. The Act of the said miscreants is highhanded one and amounts to taking law into their hands. We cannot resist the illegal and unauthorized action of the above said people in detail making frivolous claims except with the kind interference of this Authority we are left un protected. The Act of the said miscreants is highhanded one and amounts to taking law into their hands. The miscreants need to be summoned to the Police Station and warning may be given not to interfere in our schedule property and interrupt our activities in the Schedule Property. In the event, the said miscreants exhibit disrespect to the warning issued by this Authority, then the appropriate criminal action may be initiated against the said persons. Therefore, we request your goodself to kindly register the complaint against the said miscreants for making criminal trespass in our property and punish them in accordance with law and request to provide police protection to our property and oblige. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Seven Hills Developers & Traders (P)Ltd. Sd/- (SUHAS SUDHAKAR), Director.” The complainant afore-quoted becomes a crime in Crime No.366 of 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 34 of the IPC . Section 447 is alleged on the score that the complainant and others have indulged in criminal trespass into the property of the 1 st petitioner/company. The crime is registered, as observed hereinabove, on 09-09-2023. The very next day the impugned crime comes to be registered i.e., on 10-09-2023 in Crime No.373 of 2023 for the aforesaid offences. Since the said issue is triggered by the registration of the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint dated 09-09-2023 reads as follows: Sd/- Police Sub Inspector Yelahanka Police Station Bangalore 560 064” The narration in the complaint is that the complainant and others are in possession. The petitioners have deceitfully got the sale deed executed in respect of Sy.No.108/1. Proceedings are pending before the Tahsildar and the civil Court and, therefore, they are in possession of the property. About 30 – 40 people have come to the property of the complainant and have indulged in assault. There is no indication of hurling of any abuse taking the name of the caste intentionally in the complaint. The complaint, as observed, becomes a crime. The registration of crime is the subject matter of the petition. 10. About 30 – 40 people have come to the property of the complainant and have indulged in assault. There is no indication of hurling of any abuse taking the name of the caste intentionally in the complaint. The complaint, as observed, becomes a crime. The registration of crime is the subject matter of the petition. 10. If the afore-quoted facts are noticed, what would unmistakably emerge is, the complainant has sought to set the criminal law into motion on an issue which is purely civil in nature lacing the offence of atrocity. It would have been altogether different circumstance if no sale deed had been registered or consideration had not passed in respect of the subject survey number. Consideration close to ?9/- crores is found in the sale deed and it is a registered sale deed before the office of the Sub- Registrar. All these narrations are found in the civil suit where the complainant and others seek cancellation of the sale deed; even return of original documents. If that be the prayer in the civil suit, the unmistakable inference is that the 1 st petitioner is in possession of the property. If the 1 st petitioner is in possession of the property, complainant and others cannot allege of offence punishable under Section 447 of the IPC . Section 447 of the IPC reads as follows: “ 447. Punishment for criminal trespass .— Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.” Section 447 mandates that there should be a criminal trespass by the accused into the property of the complainant to attract the provisions of the section. In the case at hand, the complainant and others are not in possession of the property as is found in the sale deed and in the prayer of the civil suit. If they are not in possession of the property, it cannot be alleged that the petitioners have trespassed into the property belonging to the complainant. If the allegation is permitted to be investigated into, it would become an investigation of a criminal trespass into the petitioners’ own property which the law does not countenance. Therefore, there is no offence for the one punishable under Section 447 of the IPC . 11. If the allegation is permitted to be investigated into, it would become an investigation of a criminal trespass into the petitioners’ own property which the law does not countenance. Therefore, there is no offence for the one punishable under Section 447 of the IPC . 11. The other offence is one punishable under Section 427 of the IPC , which deals with mischief. Section 427 of the IPC has the ingredients of Section 447 itself, as possession is the soul of Section 427 as well. If the complainant and others are not in possession, it is ununderstandable as to how the offence as alleged could be held against these petitioners albeit in the crime. 12. The other offences are the ones punishable for unlawful assembly, as offences under Section 143 , 147 and 149 of the IPC are laid against the petitioners. The justification in the petition and in the complaint so registered is that people in the land were undertaking levelling of the land for the purpose of construction. It is at that point in time the complainant and others had created problems and, therefore the complaint in Crime No.366 of 2023 was registered. Hence, the offence of unlawful assembly is also loosely laid against the petitioners. 13. What remains are the offences under the Act; Section 3(1)(r), and (s) which are invoked read as follows: “ 3. Punishments for offences of atrocities .— (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— … … … (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;” The soul of Section 3(1)(r) and (s) is that abuses taking the name of the caste intentionally should be hurled in a public place or in a place of public view. Neither appears to be the allegation in the complaint. The complaint is quoted supra. The complaint contains the allegation of trespass into the property of the complainant. Those are untrue, insofar as registration of crime is concerned. 14. Neither appears to be the allegation in the complaint. The complaint is quoted supra. The complaint contains the allegation of trespass into the property of the complainant. Those are untrue, insofar as registration of crime is concerned. 14. The Apex Court, in the case of HITESH VERMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND , [ (2020) 10 SCC 710 ] , while answering an identical circumstance of hurling of abuses in the background of several disputes pending between the complainant and the accused therein has held as follows: “…. …. …. 10. The Act was enacted to improve the social economic conditions of the vulnerable sections of the society as they have been subjected to various offences such as indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have been deprived of life and property as well. The object of the Act is thus to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations and harassment and commit the offence as defined under Section 3 of the Act. The Act is thus intended to punish the acts of the upper caste against the vulnerable section of the society for the reason that they belong to a particular community. 11. It may be stated that the charge-sheet filed is for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section stands substituted by Act 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26-1-2016. The substituted corresponding provision is Section 3(1)(r) which reads as under: “ 3. (1)( 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;” 12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as “(1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and (2) in any place within public view”. 13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that Respondent 2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that Respondent 2 is a member of Scheduled Caste. 14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to be regarded as “place in public view” had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] . The Court had drawn distinction between the expression “public place” and “in any place within public view”. It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view (sic) [ Ed. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view (sic) [ Ed. : This sentence appears to be contrary to what is stated below in the extract from Swaran Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435 , at p. 736d-e, and in the application of this principle in para 15, below:“Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view.”] . The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28) “28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a “chamar”) when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression “place within public view” with the expression “public place”. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaonsabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.” (emphasis in original) 15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. 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 [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] , 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 2 herself. Due to dispute, the appellant and others were not permitting Respondent 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, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 17. In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh v. State of M.P. [Khuman Singh v. State of M.P., (2020) 18 SCC 763 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104], this Court held that in a case for applicability of Section 3(2)( v ) of the Act, the fact that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhanced punishment. This Court held that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. The Court held as under: “15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. This Court held that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. The Court held as under: “15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the deceased was belonging to “Khangar” Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable.” 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. 19. This Court in a judgment reported as Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra [ Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra , (2018) 6 SCC 454 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 124] issued certain directions in respect of investigations required to be conducted under the Act. In a review filed by the Union against the said judgment, this Court in a judgment reported as Union of India v. State of Maharashtra [Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 686] reviewed the directions issued by this Court and held that if there is a false and unsubstantiated FIR, the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked. The Court held as under: (Union of India case [Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 686], SCC p. 797, para 52) “52. The Court held as under: (Union of India case [Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 686], SCC p. 797, para 52) “52. There is no presumption that the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may misuse the provisions of law as a class and it is not resorted to by the members of the upper castes or the members of the elite class. For lodging a false report, it cannot be said that the caste of a person is the cause. It is due to the human failing and not due to the caste factor. Caste is not attributable to such an act. On the other hand, members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes due to backwardness hardly muster the courage to lodge even a first information report, much less, a false one. In case it is found to be false/unsubstantiated, it may be due to the faulty investigation or for other various reasons including human failings irrespective of caste factor. There may be certain cases which may be false that can be a ground for interference by the Court, but the law cannot be changed due to such misuse. In such a situation, it can be taken care of in proceeding under Section 482 CrPC.” 20. Later, while examining the constitutionality of the provisions of the amending Act (Central Act 27 of 2018), this Court in a judgment reported as Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India [Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 657] held that proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code. It was held as under: (SCC p. 751, para 12) “12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters, as already observed while deciding the review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no argument to the contrary has been raised.” 21. It was held as under: (SCC p. 751, para 12) “12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters, as already observed while deciding the review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no argument to the contrary has been raised.” 21. In Gorige Pentaiah [ Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. (2008) 12 SCC 531 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 446] , one of the arguments raised was non-disclosure of the caste of the accused but the facts were almost similar as there was civil dispute between parties pending and the allegation was that the accused has called abuses in the name of the caste of the victim. The High Court herein has misread the judgment of this Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale [Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 3 SCC 789 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 20] as it was not a case about the caste of the victim but the fact that the accused was belonging to upper caste was not mentioned in the FIR. The High Court of Bombay had quashed the proceedings for the reason that the caste of the accused was not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is not made out. In an appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court, this Court held that this will be the matter of investigation as to whether the accused either belongs to or does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the High Court erred in law to dismiss the quashing petition relying upon later larger Bench judgment. 22. The appellant had sought quashing of the charge- sheet on the ground that the allegation does not make out an offence under the Act against the appellant merely because Respondent 2 was a Scheduled Caste since the property dispute was not on account of the fact that Respondent 2 was a Scheduled Caste. The property disputes between a vulnerable section of the society and a person of upper caste will not disclose any offence under the Act unless, the allegations are on account of the victim being a Scheduled Caste. The property disputes between a vulnerable section of the society and a person of upper caste will not disclose any offence under the Act unless, the allegations are on account of the victim being a Scheduled Caste. Still further, the finding that the appellant was aware of the caste of the informant is wholly inconsequential as the knowledge does not bar any person to protect his rights by way of a procedure established by law. 23. This Court in a judgment reported as Ishwar Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. [Ishwar Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 612 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 818] held that there is no prohibition under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in part. In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court is required to examine as to whether its intervention is required for prevention of abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court held as under : (SCC p. 618, para 9) “9. Having regard to the settled legal position on external interference in investigation and the specific facts of this case, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice. There is no prohibition under law for quashing a charge-sheet in part. A person may be accused of several offences under different penal statutes, as in the instant case. He could be aggrieved of prosecution only on a particular charge or charges, on any ground available to him in law. Under Section 482, all that the High Court is required to examine is whether its intervention is required for implementing orders under the Criminal Procedure Code or for prevention of abuse of process, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. A charge-sheet filed at the dictate of somebody other than the police would amount to abuse of the process of law and hence the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 to the extent of the abuse. There is no requirement that the charge-sheet has to be quashed as a whole and not in part. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The supplementary report filed by the police, at the direction of the Commission, is quashed.” 24. There is no requirement that the charge-sheet has to be quashed as a whole and not in part. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The supplementary report filed by the police, at the direction of the Commission, is quashed.” 24. In view of the above facts, we find that the charges against the appellant under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are not made out. Consequently, the charge-sheet to that extent is quashed. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.”” In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of HITESH VERMA supra, the crime so registered against the petitioners cannot be permitted to be investigated into. 15. The Apex Court has, time and again, directed that the High Courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must necessarily go beyond the complaint, look at the attendant circumstances that has become the reason for registration of the crime, as complaints now-a-days are being registered purely in civil matters to wreak vengeance, counter-blast or for recovery of money. It is in those cases the Apex Court holds, that this Court must exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and obliterate the proceedings, even if it is at the stage of crime. Here it is apposite to refer to the judgment in the case of MAHMOOD ALI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH , [2023 SCC OnLine SC 950] , wherein it is held as follows: “…. …. …. 11. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. 12. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance etc. then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. 13. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged. 14. State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy [State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1805] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held : (Golconda Linga Swamy case [State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1805] , SCC p. 527, paras 5-7) “5. … Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. … Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. 6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866 ] , this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (SCC OnLine SC para 6) (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 7 . In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. That is the function of the trial Judge Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death.” (emphasis supplied) 15. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order [Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 2568] passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is hereby set aside. The criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 127 of 2022 dated 4-6-2022 registered at Police Station Mirzapur, Saharanpur, State of U.P. are hereby quashed.” (Emphasis supplied) 16. The Apex Court in the case of GHANSHYAM SONI v. STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) , [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1301] , while dealing with an offence under Section 498A has held as follows: “…. …. …. 12. In this respect, the Sessions Court has applied its judicial mind to the allegations in the FIR & the material on record, and has rightly discharged the Appellants of the offences under section 498A & 34 IPC . Notwithstanding the said observation by the Sessions Court that the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out, the discharge of the Appellant merely because the Complainant is a police officer is erroneous and reflects poorly on the judicial decision making, which must be strictly based on application of judicial principles to the merits of the case. On the other hand, the High Court vide the Impugned Order has traversed one step further and overtly emphasised that simply because the Complainant is a police officer, it cannot be assumed that she could not have been a victim of cruelty at the hands of her husband and in-laws. We agree with the sensitive approach adopted by the High Court in adjudicating the present case, however a judicial decision cannot be blurred to the actual facts and circumstances of a case. We agree with the sensitive approach adopted by the High Court in adjudicating the present case, however a judicial decision cannot be blurred to the actual facts and circumstances of a case. In this debate, it is only reasonable to re-iterate that the Sessions Court in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction and the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC, must delve into the material on record to assess what the Complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. In the present case, such scrutiny of the allegations in the FIR and the material on record reveals that no prima facie is made out against the Appellant or his family. It is also borne from the record that the divorce decree of their marriage, has already been passed, and the same has never been challenged by the Complainant wife, and hence has attained finality. Upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and that the alleged incidents pertain to the year 1999 and since then the parties have moved on with their respective lives, it would be unjust and unfair if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial.” The Apex Court observes that the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 must delve into the material on record to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. If the judgments quoted hereinabove of the Apex Court are considered, what would unmistakably emerge is that this Court cannot be a mute spectator to accept the crime so registered in the kind of the cases that are presented before the Court and permit investigation to go on. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed. (ii) FIR in Crime No.373 of 2023 registered by the Yelahanka Police Station on 10-09-2023 against the petitioners stands quashed. (iii) The observations made in the case at hand are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and the same cannot bind, influence or become applicable to any other proceedings before any other fora pending between the parties. Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2023 also stands disposed.