JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Gandhi appearing for the petitioner has stated that he does not press the petition for quashing of offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("the IPC").

2. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of the F.I.R. being C.R. No. 11-134 of 2015 registered with Bardoli Police Station, District: Surat for the offences punishable under Section 504 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("the Atrocities Act").

3. The brief facts of the case are that the first informant - Sheelaben Rameshbhai Rathod - respondent No. 2 lodged F.I.R. on 08.10.2015 bearing C.R. No. 11-134 of 2015 for the alleged incident taken place on 07.10.2015 at around 8.30 p.m. with Bardoli Police Station, District: Surat. It is alleged in the impugned F.I.R. that before 15 years, House No. 5234 was allotted in favour of her deceased husband in the "Indira Aawas Project". It is submitted that the house opposite to her residence in New Indira Aawas was originally allotted to Ramiben Madhubhai Rathod and Ratanjibhai Jinabhai Rathod. It is submitted that since last five years, the petitioner - accused is residing in the said both houses as tenant. Thereafter, a quarrel between the first informant and the petitioner had taken place, wherein the petitioner had claimed the ownership of the said property, however, no police complaint was filed. It is alleged that in the last Ramzan, the petitioner had come to her house and had given threats by saying that the houses, wherein you people are residing belongs to him, so vacate it at the earliest, else my parents will enter into the house forcefully, for which they will not be responsible. Thereafter, she requested that the houses were allotted by the Government and, therefore, you can raise your complaint to the Government authorities. It is alleged that on 07.08.2015, when the first informant was at home and after having meal at night, she went outside to throw trash in the gutter situated near to her house, at that time, the petitioner had objected to and started abusing her by saying that they are throwing trash in their boundaries, and they are of lower caste and will never improve their mentality. It is alleged that the petitioner used insulting language qua her caste. At that time, her daughter Shital was also present. The petitioner again threatened to vacate the premises and shouted at them, however, since the people started gathering, he ran away. After the said incident, she met Deputy Sarpanch - Bipinbhai and informed about the incident. He told that he will talk to the petitioner, but he did not keep his words, and thereafter, she lodged the impugned F.I.R. against the petitioner.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 2, who is one of the encroachers and illegal occupants of the property being City Survey No. 1230 admeasuring 300-72 sq.mtrs., has lodged the said concocted F.I.R. by inserting the provision of the Atrocities Act against the petitioner by adopting pressurize tactics. He has submitted that the respondent No. 2 is claiming to be the occupant of House No. 5234 allotted in favour of her deceased husband and the petitioner is residing as tenant in the houses situated opposite to her house. He has submitted that no such houses are constructed under the said project on the said land. In fact, the entire City Survey No. 1230, wherein the said residential houses, are of the private ownership of one Kalumiya Usmanmiya Malek. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. is abuse of process of law and it may be quashed.

4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Asmathunnisa vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2011 (11) SCC 259 and has submitted that it is not stated by the first informant that she was insulted by using the objectionable w