ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in SPL.C.No.5023/2021 pending before the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, DK, Mangalore sitting at Puttur arising out of Crime No.72/2020 of Puttur Town Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).

2. Sans details, facts in brief germane for consideration of the lis are as follows:

Facts as projected by the prosecution are that on 2.10.2020 at around 10.30 a.m. when the complainant was working in a newly constructed building belonging to CW-7 at Yelmudi, Puttur, Puttur Taluk accused/petitioner goes there and asks the complainant to stop the work for which the complainant appears to have replied that he is working on the instructions of the owner of the building. It is further alleged that in front of witnesses CW-2 to CW-6 the accused/petitioner addressed the complainant taking the name of his caste, threatened his life and obstructed construction activity of CW-7. Based upon this incident, a complaint is registered by the 2nd respondent/ complainant against the petitioner alleging that he has hurled abuses taking the name of his caste which would become offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act. The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. Filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under the aforementioned provisions of the Act and Sections 504, 506 and 323 of the IPC in Special Case No.5023 of 2021 is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta for Sri. Lakshmikanth G. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Ajay Prabhu, learned counsel for Sri. B.S. Sachin representing respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State.

4. Learned Senior Counsel would contend with vehemence that the complainant is an employee of CW-7 – Sri Jayakumar R.Nair against whom the petitioner has instituted civil suit and an order of injunction is operating against him and, therefore, he has set up his employee to settle his personal scores or wreck vengeance for the petitioner’s act of instituting the suit. He would further contend that hurling of abuses is neither in a public place nor in a place of public view; it is admittedly hurled at the basement of the building where no passerby was present.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing 2nd respondent and the State in unison would contend that the abuses have admittedly been hurled in front of CWs-2 to 6, the witnesses and the said act is also seen by other public. It is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean as the complaint narrates such circumstances and as such a trial would become necessary.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

7. To consider the submissions made by the respective learned counsel, a little walk in time is necessary. The petitioner and one Sri Jayakumar R.Nair were in a squabble with regard to certain property. The petitioner is plaintiff No.2 in a suit instituted in O.S.No.179 of 2020 in which 8th defendant is Sri Jayakumar R.Nair. The said suit is instituted by the petitioner seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants. The civil Court concerned has granted an interim order of injunction in favour of the petitioner and others which reads as follows:

"Heard. Perused. There are sufficient materials to pass an ex-parte TI order restraining the defendants from alienating or creating any charge over plaint 'A' Schedule Property till next date of hearing. If ex-pare TI order is not passed very purpose of filing the suit will be defeated. Hence