( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4664 OF 2010 Parmeshwar Vithal Pawar and others. APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. RESPONDENTS .... Mr. P.R. Patil, advocate holding for Mr. R.K. Ingole-Patil, advocate for the applicants. Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 19th November, 2010] PER COURT : 1. The application is for anticipatory bail. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.R. Patil holding for Mr. R.K. Ingole-Patil, advocate for the applicants. 3. It is argued that caste of the complainant is shown as Baudha and religion is shown as Hindu and, therefore, the offence may not come within the ambit of Section 3 (x) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. My ( 2 ) attention is invited to observations in "Mangala Parashram Kelkar and another vs. State of Maharashtra" (1979 Mh.L.J. 599). A Single Bench of this Court observed in the given case that Buddhist does not belong to a scheduled caste. It is argued that the applicants No. 2 to 4 are unconcerned with the assault which was allegedly mounted by the applicant No.1 and, therefore, they are not criminally liable. I find it difficult to countenance the argument. First, the observations in the case of "Mangala Parashram Kelkar and another" (supra) are in relation to provisions of Protection of Civil Rights Act and moreover, the view is of no avail in the context of the provisions of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Apart from this, the question regarding status of the complainant as member of Scheduled Caste may be considered during course of investigation, which is directed under section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicants No. 2 to 4 are said to have addressed the complainant as "dhedni maharni" and asked her as to what was her work in the land. It is alleged that she was assaulted by means of sickle by the applicant No.1 and, therefore, she became injured and fell down. There are specific averments in the complaint about role played by the applicants and, therefore, the applicants are not entitled to seek the extraordinary relief ( 3 ) under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application is, therefore, dismissed. 4. The prayer for quashing of the FIR is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the basis of the material which may be gathered during course of the investigation. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln4664-10