1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.236 OF 2009. Bandu Nivrutti Sontakke and others ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.B.Dhongade, advocate for the petitioners. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.P.P. for the State. ... WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.205 OF 2009. Hiraman Sitaram Sontakke and others ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents. ... 2 Mr.A.B.Dhongade, advocate for the petitioners. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.P.P. for the State. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 08.10.2009. PER COURT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By these petitions, the petitioners seek quashing of first information report registered vide CR No.11/2009, dated 26.1.2009, filed by one Baburao Tanaji Jadhav, against them and other accused persons. 3. The Police Station Officer of Basmath Police Station has registered offence U/ss 147, 149, 336, 337, 338, 324, 452, 295 of the I.P.Code and U/s 135 of the Bombay Police Act and U/s 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Crime is registered against the petitioners and several other accused persons. 3 4. The registration of crime and the proceedings against the petitioners have been challenged chiefly on the ground that all the petitioners are members of "Matang" caste and are therefore, not liable to be prosecuted for offence U/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 5. Heard learned counsel and learned A.P.P. I have gone through the recitals of the FIR and the relevant material. 6. The petitioners have filed on record the caste certificates which indicate that they are members of Scheduled Castes. The learned A.P.P. has also placed on record a copy of report which purports to show that the petitioners are members of Scheduled Caste. The petitioners themselves being from the category of the persons who could be regarded as victims under provisions of the said Act, they can not be charged for any offence U/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 4 1989. The statement made by the petitioners in the petitions have remained uncontroverted. Needless to say, the charge against them for offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is without foundation. So far as other charges are concerned, there is no substratum available to exonerate them at the premature stage. 7. Considering the foregoing reasons, both the petitions are partly allowed. The FIR to the extent of the petitioners and only to the extent of the offence U/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is quashed and they shall not be proceeded with for such offence. It is made clear that the remaining part of the FIR and the registration of the Crime is not quashed. Rule made absolute partly. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp23609