1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 163 OF 2010 Sonali w/o Jayant Gaikwad v. The State of Mah. & ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.S.Mardikar Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. A.D. Sonak, APP, for Respondents 1 & 2. Mr. M.L. Vairagade Advocate for Res. no.3. ..... CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 24 th FEBRUARY,_2010. By the present application, there is a challenge to the first information report vide Crime No. 3060 of 2009 registered at police station Washim. 2. In support of the application, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that this court ought to look into the mala fides resulting into lodging of first information report against the applicant since there is offence punishable under Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According to him, the applicant married Jayant son of the complainant and she was thrown out of the house by Jayant and his father, as a result of which proceedings 2 under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code are pending against them. The applicant filed proceedings under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance which is pending. According to him, it is in this background, the father-in-law of the applicant lodged false report in the police station alleging that he was abused by the applicant in the name of his caste. The applicant had married the person belonging to Scheduled Caste. He argued that reading of the F.I.R. itself shows that no offence under Section 3(i)(x) is made out and the applicant being a woman, this Court should extend protection to her. 3. Per contra, learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for respective respondents vehemently opposed the application and argued that the respondent no.3 is 68 years old and a retired Executive Engineer. The contention advanced by Mr.Madikar will have to be tested in the light of the fact of the status of the applicant so also the F.I.R. which has been filed by respondent no.3/complainant. They argued that offence under Section 3(i)(x) has been made out and the protection even if the applicant is woman, cannot be extended. The protection has already been given by the Sessions Judge and there is no reason now to quash the F.I.R. 4. I have gone through the F.I.R. in entirety and having heard learned counsel for rival parties, in my opinion, the first information report inspires confidence prima facie for the offence punishable under Section 3(i) (x). The fact that the applicant has been extended 3 protection in the form of anticipatory bail and is presently on bail and the fact that the application for cancellation of her anticipatory bail has already been rejected is an additional factor as to why this application should not be entertained by this Court. Perusal of the first information report makes out a prima facie case. Whether or not the same would be proved in the trial is another matter. But at this stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere. The application is therefore dismissed. JUDGE /TA/ 4