( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4425 OF 2009 Balu Dnyandeo @ Mauli Jadhav and Ors. .. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. M.B. Narwade, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. M.K. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 27.08.2010 P.C. :- 1. By this application, the applicants seek quashing of F.I.R. lodged by respondent No.3 for offences punishable under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The applicants also sought anticipatory bail during pendency of proceedings. Ad-interim relief was granted to them as per order dated 29th December, 2009. ( 2 ) 3. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, respondent No.3 and learned A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2. 4. Counsel for the applicants would submit that F.I.R. dated 03.12.2009 is lodged without any reason. He would submit that mere use of word “Bhiltya” or “Bhivchya” in reference to respondent No. 3 would not constitute any offence under the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He seeks to rely on Pappu Singh V/s. State of U.P., 2002 Cri.L.J.1251 (Allahabad). 5. Perusal of the F.I.R. purports to show that on 01.10.2009 the applicants abused respondent No.3 near the public place called “Par” on account of prior grudge against respondent No.3 to allow use of water situated in his agricultural land. There was previous dispute. The applicants allegedly threatened respondent No. 3 and called him “Bhiltya” or “Bhivchya”. In the same morning they entered his house and assaulted him by means of sticks. 6. It is well settled that for the purpose of quashing ( 3 ) of F.I.R., it is necessary to establish that the allegations made in the F.I.R. do not constitute any offence or that the F.I.R. itself is of such a nature that ordinarily it can be gathered that the same is filed with oblique intention to harass the accused persons. It also can be quashed by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction when the accused are in a position to establish a negative manner that the incident must not have occurred as alleged in the F.I.R. In the present case it is apparent that the applicants and respondent No.3 are owners of lands adjoining each other. It further appears that respondent No.3 had allowed applicants to use well water of well situated in his land. There were was cordial relationship between them prior to the month of August, 2009. The averments made in the F.I.R. cannot be discarded and disbelieve at premature stage. The averments made in the F.I.R. purports to show that the applicants abused respondent No. 3 in filthy language and referred him as “Bhivchya” or “Bhiltya”. In Pappu Singh (Supra), learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court was required to consider the case of prosecution after the conviction and in the context of other circumstances. At the trial the intention of the accused may be gathered but prematurely it ( 4 ) cannot be determined. In Swaran Singh and Ors. V/s. State Through Standing Counsel and Anr., 2009 (2) Mh.L.J.22 (S.C.), it is held by the Apex Court that the use of word “chamar” by the so called upper castes and O.B.Cs. will certainly attract section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, if from the context it appears that it was used in a derogatory sense to insult or humiliate a member of SC/ST. One cannot sadden mind of the human being at the stage of inception of the investigation. The use of such words in the context is required to be examined after due trial. It is difficult to say that the F.I.R. is unfounded and false. Considering these aspects, this is not fit case to exercise extra-ordinary powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the result, the application is dismissed. Ad- interim protection is withdrawn. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2010/AUG10/cra4425.09