[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN.APPLN.NO.362 OF 2008 Shri.Mohan Vithoba Lokegaonkar ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Shirish Gupte Senior Counsel along with Mr.Sudeep Pasbola Advocate for applicant Mr.S.S.Pednekar A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Originally FIR i.e. CR No.4 of 2007 came to be lodged against the applicant at Satara Police Station. The said FIR was only under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act. The applicant preferred an application for discharge before the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay. By order dated 11.7.2008 the learned Special Judge [-2-] discharged the applicant from the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) of the S.C.S.T. Act and under Section 7(1)(d) of P.C.R.Act. However, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the contents of the complaint show that the applicant-accused had threatened the complainant to kill. The accused also abused the complainant as a rapist. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that it appears prima facie that accused insulted the complainant and hence, offence under Section 504 of IPC can be made out against the accused, hence, the learned Sessions Judge directed the trial to proceed against the applicant under Section 504 of IPC. 3. Firstly, it is noticed that originally the FIR was only under Sections 3(1)(x) of the S.C.S.T. Act and 7(1)(d) of the P.C.R.Act. In the said FIR, there is no reference to any threat to kill the complainant. Even in the further statement, there is only reference to abuses and threat to beat and not threat to kill. Even assuming that as per the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge, case falls under Section 504 of IPC, the offence under Section 504 of IPC being a non-cognizable [-3-] offence, there is no question of trial directly proceeding against the accused under Section 504 of IPC as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. In view of the fact that originally the FIR was only under Sections 3(1)(x) of the S.C.S.T. Act and under Section 7(1)(d) of P.C.R.Act and the fact that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly discharged the applicant under the aforesaid sections, the said CR No.4 of 2007 deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. As far as offence under Section 504 of IPC is concerned, there is no question of trial directly proceeding against the applicant as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. Direction of the learned Sessions Judge to this effect is quashed. It is always open to the complainant to file a private complaint if he so desires. 4. With the above observation, the application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]