[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.3061 OF 2008 Shubhangi Dilip Kulkarni and Anr. ..Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar advocate for Applicants Ms.A.A.Mane A.P.P. for the State Mr.Vinod Wagh Adv. for Respondent no.2 ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 20, 2008 DATE : NOVEMBER 20, 2008 DATE : NOVEMBER 20, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Leave to amend granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants-original accused, the learned advocate for the respondent no.2-orignial complainant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 3. Respondent no.2 lodged FIR against the applicants being CR No.3014 of 2008 of Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur. The said case is under [-2-] Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. The learned advocate for the applicants contended that the First Information Report lodged by respondent no.2-complainant does not disclose the caste of the accused and therefore, on this ground alone, FIR as far as offence under Section 3(i)(x) of SC and ST Act is concerned, is liable to be struck down. It is noticed that the complainant had not stated anywhere that the applicants-accused does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Thus the caste of the accused has not been stated by the complainant. 5. The learned advocate for the Respondent no.2 placed reliance on the decisions of the Single Judge of the Kerala High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court i.e. in the case of Rosamma Thomas and Rosamma Thomas and Rosamma Thomas and another Vs. Circle Inspector of Police, another Vs. Circle Inspector of Police, another Vs. Circle Inspector of Police, Tripunithura and others, Tripunithura and others, Tripunithura and others, reported in 1999- 1999- 1999- (105)-CRLJ 1666 KER (105)-CRLJ 1666 KER (105)-CRLJ 1666 KER and in the case of Naga Bhixam Naga Bhixam Naga Bhixam alias Bhixapathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; alias Bhixapathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; alias Bhixapathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; 1996-(102)-CRLJ-2400-AP. 1996-(102)-CRLJ-2400-AP. 1996-(102)-CRLJ-2400-AP. In the case of Naga Naga Naga [-3-] Bhixam (supra), Bhixam (supra), Bhixam (supra), it is held that "in the cases where the offences are tried under Act, it is not necessary to allege that the offence has been committed on the ground that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, whether the accused has committed the offence on that ground or not has to be ascertained from the material gathered during the trial and it is not possible to say at the stage from the complaint itself that the petitioner has not committed the offence on the ground that the victim was a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 6. Both the decisions on which reliance is placed by the learned advocate for Respondent no.2, are decisions rendered by a Single Judge of the Kerala and Andhra Pradesh High Court. However, on the very same point, there are direct decisions of this Court. Useful reference may be made to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court (V.K. Barde and A.P. Deshpande, JJ.) dated 20th April, 2001 in the case of Anant Vasantlal Sambre V. State of Maharashtra, in Cri. W.P. No. 49 of 2001, in which it was held that if the FIR does not contain an averment that the accused does not belong to a [-4-] Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the offence under Section 3 of the Atrocities Act, cannot be registered. The said decision being a decision by the Division Bench, I am bound by the said decision. 7. Thus, it is seen that if the caste of the accused is not disclosed in the F.I.R., the police authorities could not be said to have any material to invoke the powers under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. and to commence investigation, considering the complaint to be a cognizable complaint. 8. Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view shall be punishable with imprisonment. A Division Bench of this Court (R.M.S. Khandeparkar and Smt. V.K. Tahilramani,JJ.) in the case of Subhadra Sushil Anand and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1019 of 2007 decided on 13.9.2007, has held that "plain reading [-5-] of the provisions of law comprised under Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act therefore would reveal that in order to enable the police to take cognizance of the offence committed under the said provisions of law, it would be necessary for the complainant to disclose that the person who is accused of commission of offence under the said Act is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and that he intentionally insults or intimidates with intend to humiliate the complainant or any other person who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and lastly that such incident should occur in public view. In other words, the complaint has not only to reveal the caste of the person who is sought to be insulted or intimidated or humiliated but he should also disclose that such person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and simultaneously the complaint should also reveal that the person who is accused of commission of such offence does not belong either to a Scheduled caste or to a Scheduled Tribe. It is only when the accusation with an intention to insult or intimidate or to humiliate has been made by a person not belonging either to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and addressed to the [-6-] person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, and such incident occurs in public view, only in that case, he could be said to have committed an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the said Act and not otherwise. Obviously, therefore, if the complaint does not disclose that the accused person does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, it would not disclose an offence in terms of the said section." 9. In the present case, the complaint is totally silent about the caste of the accused persons. There is no material on record to show that the accused did not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of essential facts, it cannot be said that any case is made out under the SC & ST Act. 10. Hence, C.R. No. 3014 of 2008 registered with Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur and the proceedings relating thereto are quashed. Application is disposed of accordingly. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]