1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.140 OF 2009 Shaikh Naim S/o Shaikh Abbas Bagwan Age: 27 Yrs.Occu: Business R/o Main Road,Georai, Tq.Georai Dist.Beed. Appellant V/s 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Bhimrao S/o Dadarao Sutar Age:55 Yrs. Occu:Business R/o. Sanghmitra Nagar, Georai Tq.Georai Dist.Beed. Respondents -------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.M.Gaikwad Advocate for the appellant. Mrs. R.M.Reddy A.P.P. For the State. -------------------------------------------------------- 2 [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] [DATE : 22nd July, 2009] PER COURT : 1] Rule. Rule made, returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel and learned A.P.P. 2] The petitioner challenges F.I.R. dated 28/12/2008 registered vide Crime No.I-265/2008 against him at Gevrai Police Station for offence U/Sec.3(i)(X) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities)Act, 1989. 3] Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.Smt.Reddy. None appears for the respondent no.2. 4] The respondent no.2 lodged F.I.R. vide Crime No.I-295/2008 alleging that on 20th December 2008 at about 11.45 a.m., he was intercepted by one Shaikh Abbas Shaikh Dadamiya Bagwan and was insulted on ground that he is being member Schedule caste. The recitals of the 3 F.I.R. show that the main accused by name Shaikh Abbas and the present petitioner went to the place of the incident on a motorcycle. The recitals of the F.I.R., however, would show that the said Shaikh Abbas obstructed the way of the respondent no.2 by parking a motorcycle in his front and thereafter threatened him. He addressed the respondent no.2 as "Mangtya" on the public road, caught hold of his neck and slapped him. The F.I.R., however, shows that the petitioner assaulted the respondent no.2 by means of kicks and fist blows. It is pertinent to note that the contents in the F.I.R. would make it amply clear that the petitioner did not address any kind of abuses or words in relation to the respondent no.2 with reference to his caste. The petitioner did not speak anything during course of the incident. The additional statement of the petitioner also does not attribute any role to the petitioner in so far as offence U/Sec.3 (i) (x) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Attrotricities) Act is concerned. Therefore, the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed to the extent of said offence in so far as the petitioner is concerned. The learned A.P.P. pointed out 4 that the statement of witness Bajirao Sage shows that the petitioner also was addressing such abuses on caste of the respondent no.2. I have perused the police statement of Bajirao Sage. It appears that he did not specify as to by which word the petitioner had referred the caste of the respondent no.2. He gave vague statement to the effect that Shaikh Abbas and the petitioner were addressing abuses to the respondent no.2 in name of his caste. The F.I.R. does not show presence of Bajirao Sage. His statement was recorded after two days. There is no medical evidence to show that the respondent no.2 received injuries during course of the assault. 5] Considering the forging reasons, the impugned F.I.R. registered against the petitioner is liable to be quashed in as much as there is no prima facie material to infer his complicity for offence punishable U/Sec. 3(i) (x) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act. Hence the petition is allowed. The impugned F.I.R. and the proceedings arising 5 out of the same, only to the extent of the petitioner, are quashed. Rule made absolute accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE DSP/cri.WP140.09