..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3139 OF 2008 Laxman Narayan Gaikwad. ..Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.V.V.Purwant, Adv. for the applicants. Mr.A.A.Mane, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 1st December, 2008. DATED : 1st December, 2008. DATED : 1st December, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant - orig.accused and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking quashing of FIR relating to C.R. No.I-77 of 2008 of Dahanu police station. The said case is under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, under Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and under Sections 354, 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Advocate for the applicant states that he is not pressing for quashing of Sections under Indian Penal Code at ..(2).. this stage and he seeks liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court in respect of said offences at a later stage. Liberty as prayed for is granted. Hence this application is being considered only in respect of quashing of offences under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, 3. The learned advocate for the applicant states that the caste of the applicant is not mentioned in the FIR and on that ground, the FIR be quashed. He submitted that if the caste of the accused is not disclosed in the F.I.R., the police authorities could not be said to have any material to invoke the powers under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. and to commence investigation, considering the complaint to be a cognizable complaint. He placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court (V.K. Barde and A.P. Deshpande, JJ.) dated 20th April, 2001 in the case of Anant Vasantlal Sambre V. State of Maharashtra, in Cri. W.P. No. 49 of 2001, in which it was held that if the FIR does not contain an averment that the accused does not belong to a Scheduled Caste or ..(3).. Scheduled Tribe, the offence under Section 3 of the Atrocities Act, cannot be registered. 4. A Division Bench of this Court (R.M.S. Khandeparkar and Smt. V.K. Tahilramani,JJ.) in the case of Subhadra Sushil Anand and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1019 of 2007 decided on 13.9.2007, has held that "plain reading of the provisions of law comprised under Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act therefore would reveal that in order to enable the police to take cognizance of the offence committed under the said provisions of law, it would be necessary for the complainant to disclose that the person who is accused of commission of offence under the said Act is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and that he intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate the complainant or any other person who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and lastly that such incident should occur in public view. In other words, the complaint 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 ..(4).. 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 Scheduled Tribe and addressed to the person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, and such incident occurs in public view, 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 FIR does not disclose that the accused person does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, it would not disclose an offence in terms of the said section." In the case of Subhadra Anand, the Division Bench was only considering a case under Section 3(1)(x), hence, the reference to the aspect that the incident should occur in public view. However, from the said decision, it is clear that to attract the provisions of this Act, the aggrieved person has to belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the accused should not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. ..(5).. 5. In the present case, the complaint is totally silent about the caste of the accused persons. In the absence of essential facts, it cannot be said that any case is made out under the SC & ST Act. Looking to the above facts, in my view, a case is made out to quash the C.R. 6. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the present applicant also belongs to the same caste as the complainant i.e. aggrieved person. In such case, the provisions of the SC/ST Act would not be attracted. The same reasoning would apply in the case of PCR Act. 7. In this view of the matter as far as Sections 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 are concerned, the said sections are quashed. However, it is made clear that Sections 354, 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code are retained. Liberty is granted to the applicants to prefer appropriate proceedings in respect of the same before appropriate forum. ..(6).. 9. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)