254 : (2008)12 SCC 531, wherein having interpreted the provisions of Section 3 of the Act and scope of Section 482 Cr.PC, it was ruled (para 6) as under :- "6. In the instant case, the allegation of Respondent 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 appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (Respondent 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 appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate Respondent 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." 19. Sequelly, the same view was again reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Asmathunnisa v. State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another 2011(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 571 : 2011(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 388: (2011) 11 SCC 259. 20. As strange as it may appear, but strictly speaking, the common tendency and frequency of the complainants of involving and roping the accused on vague & bald allegations under section 3 of the Act, have been tremendously increasing day-by-day in our society. Even the plain and simple occurrence under the Indian Penal Code is given the colour of offence under section 3 of the special Act by adding false and vague allegations as in the instant case. This tendency needs to be curbed. If not discouraged and in the wake of their over enthusiasm and anxiety to take revenge of civil dispute by involving the accused in such falsecriminal cases, in that eventuality, it will ultimately weaken those true cases of the prosecution as well even against the real culprits and the very object and purpose of the Act, would pale into insignificance in this relevant behalf. 21. Likewise, there is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. It is not a matter of dispute that petitioners have purchased the disputed house, which the complainant party desired to purchase. They are litigating since long. If the epitome of the facts and material of previous litigation between the parties is put together and is perused, then, to me, the conclusion is inescapable that the complainant has filed the instant false criminal complaint maliciously and vexatiously in order to wreak vengeance, which formed the basis of FIR (Annexure PI) against the petitioners, which is liable to be quashed, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a celebrated judgment in case State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 383 : AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka, 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92. 22. It is now well-recognized principle of law that such matter of civil dispute cannot legally be allowed to become a subject matter of criminal proceedings. Otherwise, there will be no end of unwarranted litigation and it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the cases of the petitioners in this relevant direction. In this manner, the complainant cannot possibly be permitted to execute a non-existent civil court decree by putting pressure of criminal prosecution on the petitioners. 23. An identical point was decided in case Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Others, 2006(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 740 : (2006)6 SCC 736 and Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned about a growing tendency of the peopie to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases and noticed the prevalent impression that since the civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of the parties, so, the people have started to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying the pressure through criminal prosecution and such effort should be deprecated and discouraged. 24. Therefore, the contrary arguments of counsel for complainant-respondent that the offence under section 3 of the Act is made out against the petitioners "stricto sensu" deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances, as the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.. 25. Adjudged from any angle, to my mind, the lodging of the FIR (Annexure PI) by the complainant and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, against the petitioners-accused, is sheer and complete misuse/abuse of process of criminal law. Thus, the impugned FIR (Annexure P-l) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be set aside in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 26. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties. 27. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR (Annexure PI) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. The petitioners are accordingly discharged from the indicated criminal case. _____________