..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.571 OF 2006 1. Mr.Dilip Ramdas Joshi, 2. Mr.Kunal Dilip Joshi, 3. Mr.Nilesh Babanrao Deshmukh, & 4. Mr.Yashwant Sukhdeo Babar. ..Applicants. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.S.V.Kotwal, Adv. for the applicants. Mr.H.J.Dedia, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 8th August, 2008. DATED : 8th August, 2008. DATED : 8th August, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.II-34 of 2006 of Panvel Town police station. The said case is under Sections 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act. 3. The complainant was one of the committee members of one housing society. Applicant Nos.1, ..(2).. 3 & 4 were the office bearers of the said society. Applicant No.2 is the son of applicant No.1. The case of the complainant is that all the applicants abused him on various dates with reference to his caste. Hence complaint came to be filed by him. 4. I have perused the said complaint. In the complaint, there is no reference to the caste of any of the accused persons. It is noticed that the complainant has not stated anywhere that the accused persons do not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 4. Useful reference can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Ashabala Ashabala Ashabala Ganeshrao Khote & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra Ganeshrao Khote & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra Ganeshrao Khote & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1992(2) Mh.L.J. page-36 1992(2) Mh.L.J. page-36 1992(2) Mh.L.J. page-36, wherein this Court has held that Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, contemplates that the prosecution must establish that accused was not member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and the person aggrieved was the member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. This is the important ingredient to establish offence under Section 3 of the Act. ..(3).. There must be specific material with respect to both these aspects. 5. In the present case, the complainant in the FIR has not stated the caste of the accused persons. To attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant 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 a Scheduled Tribe and addressed to the person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, 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 do not belong to Scheduled Caste or ..(4).. Scheduled Tribe, it would not disclose an offence in terms of the said sections. 6. In the present case, the complaint is totally silent about the caste of the accused persons. 7. The FIR is also under Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. The said Section provides for punishment where a person insults or attempts to insult on the ground of untouchability a member of scheduled caste. The above reasoning about the necessity of mentioning the caste of the complainant as well as the accused in the FIR would also apply to Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. 8. Looking to the above facts, the FIR being C.R.No.II-34 of 2006 of Panvel Town police station and the proceedings relating thereto are quashed. In view of these facts, the prayer for anticipatory bail does not survive. 9. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. ..(5).. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)