ORDER : M. NAGAPRASANNA, J. The petitioners three in number, accused 1, 2 and 3, stand at the doors of this Court, calling in question proceedings in Special Case No.53/2024 registered for the offences under Sections 447, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(g) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). 2. Heard Sri Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri J.C.Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. Facts enumerated are as follows: The tussle is between the complainant and these petitioners for a particular piece of land, which the petitioners claim that they are in unauthorised occupation and the complainant claims that it has been granted to her way back in the year 1978. Owing to certain dispute with regard to the said land, the complainant was constrained to institute a suit in O.S.No.956/2023 to protect her possession and restraining the petitioners from interfering with the property. The concerned Court in OS 956/2023 granted an injunction on 25.11.2023. After the grant of injunction, the petitioners appear to have trespassed into the property belonging to the complainant and hurled certain abuses, which would become the ingredients of the offences under the Act. The police after investigation, filed a charge sheet for the afore-quoted offences. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven these petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel Sri Girish B Baladare appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the petitioners 1 and 3 were not at the spot at all. The first petitioner/accused No.1 is, in fact a teacher who is teaching in a private Institution at Bengaluru. Accused No.2 has applied for regularisation of his unauthorised occupation of the land. Therefore, it is deemed that he is in possession of the property and cannot trespass into his own property. He would submit that the abuses are neither hurled in a public place or a place of public view for the offences under the Act to get attracted. The learned counsel submits that the crime so registered is an abuse of the process of the law as the civil suit is pending between the parties. He would submit that the abuses are neither hurled in a public place or a place of public view for the offences under the Act to get attracted. The learned counsel submits that the crime so registered is an abuse of the process of the law as the civil suit is pending between the parties. In that light, he would seek quashment of the proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant, Sri J.C. Kumar would take this Court through the summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No. 17 to contend that all the offences are clearly met in the case at hand, particularly the offence under Section 354 of the IPC. There was an attempt to outrage the modesty of the complainant. The learned counsel would further submit that after the grant of injunction, as a retaliatory measure, the petitioners have trespassed into the property of the complainant and therefore, the offences are met. He would, however, submit that whether it is in a public place or a place of public view, is not clear in the complaint or in the summary of the charge sheet. 6. The learned Additional SPP Sri B.N.Jagadeesha by taking this Court through the documents appended to the petition would seek to demonstrate that, for the incident there are statements of eyewitnesses, which would indicate that the school teacher who had to be present at Bengaluru in the Institution was present at the spot and has indulged in all those offences. In that light, he would seek dismissal of the petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 8. The facts narrated hereinabove are broadly not in dispute. The petitioners and the complainant are in a tussle for a piece of land and the petitioners claim to be in unauthorised occupation of the land. The second petitioner - brother of the first petitioner has applied for regularisation of his unauthorised occupation on 03.12.2018. In that light, it would be a fact that the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of a particular piece of land. The second petitioner - brother of the first petitioner has applied for regularisation of his unauthorised occupation on 03.12.2018. In that light, it would be a fact that the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of a particular piece of land. The complainant submits that her ancestors have been granted the said land way back on 13.12.1978 and when disturbances sprang from the hands of these petitioners, the complainant was constrained to file OS 956/2023 seeking injunction against the petitioners from interfering with the possession of the complainant. The concerned Court has granted an injunction. These facts are not in dispute. After the grant of injunction on 25.11.2023, on the night of 26.12.2023, the incident occurs. The incident leads to registration of the complaint. The police after investigation, filed a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet obtained in column No.17 reads as follows: A perusal of the summary of the charge sheet is indicative of the fact that offences of hurling of abuses that would become an offence under the Act has not happened in a public place or in a place of public view and also there is absence of the intention to insult the complainant. Therefore, the offences under Section 3 (1) (r), 3(1)(s) or 3(1)(g) of the Act are not prima facie met in the case at hand. Permitting further trial against these petitioners for the offences under the Act would become an abuse of the process of the law and runs counter to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of HITESH VERMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER , (2020) 10 SCC 710 , wherein, it has been 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 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. 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”. 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. : 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. 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 gaon sabha 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. 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. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) In that light, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings insofar as the offences under the Act are concerned. 9. Insofar as the other offences, i.e., offences under Sections 447, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC are concerned, a perusal of the summary of the charge sheet as afore-quoted, it would clearly make out those offences. 10. In the light of the offences being clearly made out in the summary of the charge sheet insofar as it pertains to Sections 447, 354, 504 and 506 of the Act are concerned, this Court would not step in, to obliterate the crime in the aforesaid circumstances. Injunction is in favour of the complainant. Grant is in favour of the complainant on 13.12.1978. It is un- understandable as to how a school teacher working in an Institution in Bengaluru forms a part of the family, who has now applied for regularisation of unauthorised occupation under the Land Grant Rules. Be that as it may, for the deliberation of this issue, it is unnecessary for a decision in the lis. In the light of the aforesaid circumstance, except the allegation under the Act, all other allegations stand sustained. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following : ORDER (i) The petition is allowed in part. Be that as it may, for the deliberation of this issue, it is unnecessary for a decision in the lis. In the light of the aforesaid circumstance, except the allegation under the Act, all other allegations stand sustained. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following : ORDER (i) The petition is allowed in part. (ii) The proceedings in Spl.C.No.53/2024 registered for the offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(g) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 stand quashed. (iii) The proceedings in Spl.C.No.53/2024 registered for the offences under Sections 447, 354, 504, 506 r/w.34 of the IPC stand sustained. The petitioners shall face trial for the said offences. (iv) In the light of the matter pending before the Special Court as offences under the Act were alleged, the matter shall be placed before the appropriate Court in the light of the quashment of the offences under the Act.