1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.695 OF 2009. Pandharinath S/o Suryabhan Kardile and others ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.B.Garud, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.S.Patil, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1. Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for the Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 01.10.2009. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR of Crime No.I-50/2009, registered at Police Station, Paithan, for offences punishable U/ss 147, 148, 149, 564 and 506 and 323 read with Section 34 of the I.P.Code, as well as U/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and 2 Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The Respondent No.2 is the original complainant. He is retired Naib Tahsildar. Be belongs to Scheduled Caste being member of (Matang caste). He purchased four (4) acres land from one Kausabai Gorde, vide a registered sale deed dated 7.3.2003. He alleged that while he was cultivating eastern two (2) acres land, the petitioners trespassed in his land, insulted him on the ground of his being member of Scheduled Caste and assaulted him by means of sticks. The incident was witnessed by his agricultural servant by name Dadasaheb Kamble. He too was injured during course of the assault. 3. Heard learned counsel and learned A.P.P. 4. Mr.Garud, submits that earlier to the FIR lodged by the Respondent No.2, report was given by son of the petitioner No.1 regarding the assault mounted by the Respondent No.2 and others 3 in the same morning. He would submit that as a result of counter blast, false complaint is lodged by the Respondent No.2 with a view to harass the petitioners. He further contended that there is a Civil dispute going on between the parties in respect of the land in question and that the Respondent No.2 attempted to grab the eastern two (2) acres land under threats. He argued that the FIR lodged by the Respondent No.2 is out-come of the Civil dispute and is nothing but an attempt to pressurise the petitioners to give up their possession in respect of the land. Hence, he urged to allow the petition. 5. On consideration of the recitals of the FIR and the investigation papers, which were made temporarily available during course of hearing, it is amply clear that the Respondent No.2 medically examined in pursuance to the report lodged by him. It was noticed by the Medical Officer that there were two contusions over his both the legs, there was a contusion over left thigh and also on left upper arm. There was an abrasion found on the right hand. There were 4 three (3) contusion injuries found on the person of the agricultural servant, namely, Dadasaheb Kamble. Thus, the recitals of the FIR are prima facie corroborated by the Medico Legal Certificates. The material gathered during investigation, prima facie shows that the petitioner No.1 filed suit for injunction only in respect of two acres land situated on Western side of Gat No.61 and interim injunction is operative only to that extent. His application for amendment of the plaint with a view to add the eastern two (2) acres land in the suit came to be dismissed. Needless to say, that was no prohibitory injunction order against the Respondent No.2 in respect of the eastern two (2) acres portion of the land Gat No.61. 6. Mr.Garud, would submit that the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, are not attracted because the alleged incident is said to have taken place in a private land. I do not agree. The recitals of the FIR and the investigation papers prima facie indicate that 5 the incident occurred in presence of witnesses and one of them is an injured witness i.e. Dadasaheb Kamble. It is pertinent to note that Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, does not speak of necessity of the incident to occur in a public place as such. It only shows that the incident must be demonstrated to have occurred within public view. There is prima facie material to show that the incident occurred in the public view when the petitioners addressed the Respondent No.2 as "Mangtya". The petitioners are members of higher caste, whereas the Respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste. Considering the relevant submissions and material on record, I am of the opinion that there is no substance in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp69509