* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 718 OF 2009 Durukumar S.Chandnani ...Applicant v/s. The State of Maharashtra and anr. ....Respondents ======= Mr.D.S.Chandnani ,advocate for applicant. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, APP for the respondents/state. CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 6TH MARCH, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for both sides. 2. This application is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.for quashing of C.R.No.123 of 2008 registered with Naupada Police Station for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 3(10) of Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 337, 504, 506(2) IPC. The F.I.R. is registered on the complaint of respondent no.2. 3. The applicant and respondent no.2 are the residents of the same society. The applicant is an animal lover. He has a pet dog and claims to be feeding about 50 stray dogs everyday. It appears that members of the society have reservation about * 2 * feeding of the dogs inside the compound of the society. 4. The complaint alleges that on 14th November, 2008 at about 2 a.m. the applicant and its family members were feeding dogs near the gate of the society. At that time another resident one Mr.Deshbhartar took objection to the same. There ensued a quarrel between the two in which other members of the society also joined. It is alleged that the elder daughter of the applicant ran to the house and brought an iron rod to hit the society members at which time Mr.Deshbhartar who happens to be the Deputy Commissioner of Police asked for police help. The complaint alleges that then the complainant intentionally insulted Mr.Deshbhartar by using bad words which are averred in the complaint. A similar incident of 15th November 2008 at about 9.00 a.m. is also alleged of criminal intimidation and intentional insult on the part of the applicant. It is further alleged that the applicant threw stone at the complainant which hit him on his forehead. As regards the offences punishable under The Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act,1989, it is alleged in the complaint that the complainant who belongs to “Chambhar Caste” was insulted by the applicant saying that the persons of “Chambhar Caste” are scheduled caste people who cannot improve. In the incident, the applicant was referring himself as the person belonging to the higher caste of Sindhi community. * 3 * 5. Perusal of this complaint shows that on a prima-facie view, if the allegations made in the complaint are to be accepted as correct, the same make out the offences alleged under Section 337, 504, 506(II) IPC and under Section 3(10) of Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 6. Mr.Chandnani who is the applicant in person and advocate by profession submits that the complaint has been filed as a counter-blast to the complaint filed by him against the very persons. According to him, since he had already filed a complaint against respondent no.2 no complaint by respondent no.2 could be registered by the police. This argument needs only stated to be rejected, because it cannot be said that merely because the applicant has filed a complaint against respondent no.2, there can be no complaint made by respondent no.2 to the police against the applicant. 7. The other submission of the applicant based on the decision of Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Sarita Shyam Dake V/S. Sr.Inspector of Police & anr. reported in 2008(1)Bom.C.R.(Cri.)page 417 is that for a complaint filed under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it is necessary that the complaint discloses caste of both the sides. Perusal of the complaint shows that it does refer to the caste of both the sides and indicates that the applicant knew the caste of respondent no.2. * 4 * In these circumstances, there can be no quashing of C.R.No.123 of 2009 registered against the applicant with Naupada police station. 8. By the present application, the applicant seeks two more reliefs at prayer clause (ii) and (iii) which read as follows :- (ii) direct Naupada Police Station Thane and respondent no.1 to prosecute respondent no.2 and the persons who aided abetted him in the commission of the offences under Sections 141, 146, 150, 153A, 166, 169, 323, 349, 338, 351, 441, 452 IPC read with Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and offences 141, 146, 150, 153A, 166, 169, 322, 355, 452 IPC read with Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act as made out in complaints dated 9th June 2007 and 14th of November 2008 exhibits E and F hereto; (iii) direct the State of Maharashtra to prosecute all the officers who defied or acted contrary to their duty in not registering the offences against respondent no.2 and other persons named in exhibits E and F hereto but they aided abated and assisted respondent no.2 in fabricating exhibit K hereto for falsely prosecuting the petitioner, which constitute offences under Sections 217 to 220 read with Section 192 and 34 IPC. 9. The present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be utilised for seeking any directions to the police for registering any offences against any person. It is necessary for the applicant to file appropriate proceedings therefor. Lastly, the applicant makes a request that in the event the court is inclined to reject the application, he be granted anticipatory bail. For this purpose also, the applicant is required to file appropriate proceedings. In the circumstances, * 5 * no relief can be granted to the applicant and the above application is dismissed in limine. 10. The applicant requests for stay of operation of this order. Since the application is dismissed in limine, there can be no stay of operation of this order. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]