1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.766 OF 2007 Sanjay s/o Jagannath Aware and ors. ..Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. ..Respondents Mr.D.S.Manorkar, Advocate holding for Mr.S.G.Ladda, Advocate for applicants Mr.K.B.Choudhari, A.P.P. for respondent No.1-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS, J. DATE : 27th September, 2010 PER COURT 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the first information report on the basis of which offence vide Crime No.30/2007 came to be registered by Police Station, Waluj. It appears that on the basis of the first information report submitted by Premanand Shahaji Sable, an offence vide Crime No. 30/2007 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered. It also appears that an offence under Section 3(i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has also been registered. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant with whose assistance I have perused the first information report, a copy of which is annexed to the application. Perusal of the first information report discloses prima facie allegations in respect of commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian 2 Penal Code. In respect of the offence punishable under the Atrocities Act, learned Counsel for the applicant has urged before me that only one of the accused namely Jagannath Aware is alleged to have uttered the offending words in respect of the aforesaid offence and there are no allegations that the other accused have committed the offence punishable under the Atrocities Act. 3. By the order of this Court dated 19.4.2007, stay came to be granted vide prayer clause (C) to the application and the aforesaid relief was of staying further investigation in the said crime and also directing the appellant not to take any adverse action against the present applicants. Apparently, it appears that since stay came to be granted, further investigation has not been carried out. This certainly is a matter for further investigation. In any event, at the time of framing of the charge the applicants can point out to the trial court in respect of the fact that the perusal of the charge-sheet does not disclose commission of the offence under the Atrocities Act against the other accused and the trial Court would then appropriately frame the charge. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to me there is no merit in the present application and the application is dismissed with no order as to costs with the liberty to the applicants as stated above. ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/766.07criappln)