ORDER

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.9.2006 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

3. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are

recapitulated as under:

Bakaram Eswar, respondent No.3 herein, on 15.6.2004, filed a complaint against the appellant in the Police Station, Uppal, Hyderabad which reads as under:

"To

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Uppal.

Subject: One Gorige Pentaiah s/o Bakkaiah of Uppal Village has come to our 3200 sq. yards of land in Sy. No. 80 of Peerjadiguda with his men at 11.30 in the night and demolished the wall and went away. You are requested to take action. Apart from that though on 27.5.2004 said Gorige Pentaiah s/o Bakkaia abused us with the name of our caste no action is taken against them. I am requesting you to take action against the said people. I am filing all xerox copies of documents to show my rights in the said land. Said Pentaiah obtained pass books and pahanies in his name illegally in respect of our land in Sy. No. 80 and has been harassing us. R.D.O. has stayed the said entries. You are requested to take action against the said pentaiah and his men who demolished the compounded wall of our plot. We are also afraid that they may come at any time and kill us. Said Pentaiah drove our security guards Ramulu and Sudhakar and demolished the wall. You are requested to take action against the said person.

Sd/B.Eswar

(Bakara Eswar) S/o Rajaiah

Peerjadiguda Village,

Ghatkesar Mandal, RR District."

4. The appellant aggrieved by registration of the criminal case, invoked inherent powers of the court by filing a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court for quashing of the proceedings emanating from Crime No. 281 of 2004 Police Station Uppal, Hyderabad. The High Court, by impugned judgment dated 19.9.2006, dismissed the said petition.

5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition by the High Court, present appeal, by special leave, is preferred by the appellant.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that even if all the allegations incorporated in the complaint are taken as true, even then, no offence is made out under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and under Sections 447, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. As far as Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is concerned, it reads as under:

"3(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled

Caste or a Scheduled Tribe:-

(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view."

8. In the instant case, the allegation of respondent No.3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.5.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No. 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No. 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.

9. Similarly, we find that the ingredients of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code are totally absent in the complaint.

10. In the complaint it is not even mentioned that the accused had intimidated or threatened the complainant or any one else. In absence of basic ingredients of the section in the