( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 467 OF 2009 Ganesh s/o Baburao Harkare, R/o Sidhnathpuri, Chaufala, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Itwara Police Station, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. 2. Sambha s/o Baburao Gaikwad, R/o Shantinagar, Nanded, Tq. and Dist. Nanded. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. M.V. Ghatge, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for the respondent No.1. Mr. Milind Narwade, advocate for respondent No.2. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 18th August, 2009] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties and learned A.P.P. ( 2 ) 2. The petitioner seeks to challenge registration of offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against him vide Crime No. 29/2009. 3. The petitioner alleges that on 11th March, 2009, there was a quarrel between two groups of youngsters on account of playing dhulivandan. According to the respondent No.2/complainant, while he was taking a drunken young boy towards a cross-road (--------), the petitioner alongwith 25/30 unknown youngsters approached him. They were armed with iron rod and sticks. The petitioner allegedly pointed out towards the complainant, abused him and exhorted the others by saying that he was the same who had beaten the members of his group. The petitioner is said to have uttered in relation to the complainant that he was leading in many matters and was member of “mahar” caste. The complainant, therefore, felt insulted in the public view. ( 3 ) 4. So far as the investigation is concerned, the petitioner does not challenge the investigation into crime No. 29/2009 for the other offences. It is his contention that the offence would not come within ambit of Section 3 (1) (ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, even on the face value of the allegations. 5. On perusal of the recitals of the FIR, it is amply clear that there took place quarrel between group of two young boys. It was the day of dhulivandan festival. It is of common knowledge that on occasion of dhulivandan, many a times, the tongues are loose and old scores are settled in the rural area. The two groups of youngsters had apparently quarreled at about 4 p.m. One of the group of the youngsters was from Limboninagar area and another group was from Chouphala locality. The complainant alleges that he had pleaded with the boys of Limboninagar locality and had sent them away. He alleges that one of the young boys was heavily drunk and, therefore, he was escorting the said boy towards ( 4 ) Chouphala area. At that juncture, the present petitioner alongwith 25/30 unknown boys rushed towards him and assaulted him after saying that he was leading in every matter and was of “mahar” caste. 6. Assuming that whatever is stated in the FIR is a gospel truth, then also it is difficult to ferret out any material so as to attract provisions of section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. For, the complainant was addressed in the name of his caste and the only averment in the FIR is that he was always “leading in all matters”. In other words, the FIR purports to show that the petitioner addressed the complainant as a leader and further stated in plain terms that he was member of mahar caste. Thus, the statement with reference to the caste of the complainant is only a statement of fact that the complainant is member of such caste. It does not reflect upon intention of the petitioner to cause insult of the complainant on ground of his being a member of the Scheduled Caste. The incident in question was off-shoot ( 5 ) of the quarrel between the two groups of youngsters. It is explicit that the incident of alleged assault on the complainant is said to be out of revengeful attitude of the petitioner and his group members. It has no nexus with the caste of the complainant and the insult or intention to humiliate on the ground of his being member of Scheduled Caste. 7. In “State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar s/o Pandurang Bhokare” 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 404, a Division Bench of this Court held that merely because the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or the accused is upper caste, it does not follow that the offence punishable under section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 would be made out. In “Balu s/o Bajirao Galande v. State of Maharashtra & another” 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 3197, a Single Bench of this Court held that the expression “public view” as used in section 3 (1) (x) of the said Act has to be interpreted to mean that the members of public are present and they should be independent and impartial. ( 6 ) The incident in presence of interested persons cannot be regarded as the commission of offence in public view as such. The FIR purports to show that the two (2) witnesses who witnessed the incident are either friends or related to the complainant. Morever, whether such incident occurred in the public view is not material question in view of the peculiar circumstances brought on surface through the recitals of the F.I.R. It need not be reiterated that the only averment against the petitioner is that he uttered the sentence that the complainant was always leading in any matter and was of “mahar” caste. These utterances are not sufficient to imply intentional insult as such on the ground that the complainant is member of Scheduled Caste. In this view of the fact situation, the FIR to the extent of offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is required to be quashed though remaining part of the FIR will have to be kept intact. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed only to the extent of quashing of the FIR for offence punishable ( 7 ) under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, it is made clear that the remaining part of the FIR may be investigated and if material is collected, then proper action may be taken against the petitioner as may be permissible under the law. Rule is made absolute accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIWP467-09