1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI.APPLICATION NO.3449 OF 2008 (DEEPAK NARMADAPRASAD YADAV Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTH) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri S.M.Ukey, Advocate for Applicant CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : OCTOBER 01, 2008. 1. By this application the applicant seeks quashing of F.I.R. in Crime No.3336/2008 under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard Shri Ukey, learned counsel for the applicant. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant points out that the applicant had been complaining about the activities of the complainant Sunil Kashinath Meshram to police and other authorities. He also points out that there have been exchange of notices in the month of August between the parties. In this 2 context, he submits that a false report was made by the complainant on 17.09.2008 in respect of an imaginary incident on 09.09.2008. He submitted that this delayed F.I.R. itself shows that the incident was imaginary and therefore, contends that the F.I.R. should be quashed and the applicant should be admitted to anticipatory bail. 4. He also placed reliance in celebrated judgments in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported at AIR 1992 SC 604 as to the parameters in quashing the proceedings. He also drew my attention to two judgments of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Karansingh Vs. State of M.P., reported at 1992 CRI.L.J. 3054 and Ramcayal and Ors. Vs. State of M.P., reported at IX-1991(3) 152 Crimes to support his contention that anticipatory bail can be granted even in case where an allegation of commission of offence under which provisions of S.C.S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made. 5. I have carefully considered all the contentions. First, quashing of F.I.R. in exercise of powers under Section 482 3 of the Code would be warranted only if prima-facie or on the face of the record it is shown that there is no case for going ahead with the investigation, or that proceeding further with the investigation would amount to subjecting the applicant to unwarranted harassment. In this case, the applicant has not been able to show that the F.I.R. itself suffers from any infirmity in making out the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) of the SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Delayed F.I.R. is an aspect which can be gone into by the trial Court at the time of trial. The delayed F.I.R. does not imply that the accusation are false. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant also points out that the learned Special Judge had observed that some statement for the purpose of investigation had been recorded on 11.09.2008 when the F.I.R. itself was dated 17.09.2008. This would indicate lapse on the part of the police machinery and would make it possible that the report might have been received by the police on 09.09.2008 in order to launch investigation. Otherwise, the statements dated 11.09.2008 4 which support the complainant in respect of the incident are inexplicable. This would indicate only lapse on the part of the investigation machinery and would not necessarily support the case of the applicant. In any case, these are aspects which would be duly considered by the trial Judge while appreciating the evidence. 7. The learned counsel for the applicant rightly submitted that in the context of the allegations made, custodial investigation may not be warranted. In fact, ordinarily the Police machinery should avoid subjecting the people to arrest, unless, without the accused being taken into custody further progress in the case is not possible. The Investigating Officer shall doubtlessly bear this in mind when he consider necessity to arrest of the applicant. 8. The applications are, therefore, rejected. JUDGE RR.