1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.469 OF 2009 Vinodkumar Vrandavandas Kanabar : Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents .... Mr.K.H.Holambe Patil for the applicant. Mr.J.P.Kharge, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1. Mr.S.S. Suradkar, respondent no.2 present in person. .... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : APRIL 26, 2010. P.C.: By way of the present Revision Application, the applicant prays for quashing the order dated 29.4.2009 passed in Misc. Application No.14 of 2007 in SCST Special Case no.8 of 2007. 2. It appears that the applicant herein had filed a complaint for offences punishable under sections 202, 217 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 herein along with the State Government had approached this Court vide Criminal Writ Petition No.933 of 1998 praying for quashing of the said proceedings. By order dated 11.12.1998, the said petition came to be allowed by this Court by specifically observing that the said case was totally frivolous. 2 3. On the first information given by the present respondent no.2, the criminal proceedings came to be initiated vide SCST Special Case No.8 of 2007 for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”). The application for discharge came to be filed by the present applicant. The same is rejected by order dated 29.4.2009. Being aggrieved thereby, the present Revision Application. 4. Mr.Holambe Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the complaint which was filed by the applicant against the respondent no.2 was not on the ground that he belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, but was filed against him in his capacity as the Addl. Commissioner of Police. He, therefore, submits that since the complaint filed by him was not filed on the ground that the respondent no.2 belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the complaint filed by the respondent no.2 itself is not tenable. The learned counsel relies on the judgement of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 1999 Cri.L.J. 4173. 5. While considering similar matters, viz., Criminal Application No.1899 of 2008 (Mr.Kamlakar Ratnakar Shenoy v. State of 3 Maharashtra & Anr.) along with connected matter, I have held that whenever the Legislature intended that so as to constitute an offence, an act should be done with knowledge, intention or on the ground that the person against whom the offence is made belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the Legislature has specifically provided for the same. It has been emphatically held in the aforesaid case that insofar as the offence punishable under section 3(1)(ix) is concerned, only three ingredients are provided by the statute: (i) the accused who does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe gives any false or frivolous information to any public servant; (ii)by giving such false or frivolous information, causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe; and (iii) that the person to whom an injury or annoyance is caused should be a person who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It has been specifically held that it is not necessary that such an offence has to be committed on the ground that the person against whom the offence is committed belongs to Scheduled Caste or with knowledge that such person belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or with intention that he belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 4 6. Admittedly, in the present case, the applicant does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. An information was given by the present applicant by filing a criminal complaint due to which the criminal Court was set in motion and which complaint has been found by this Court to be a frivolous one. As such, I find that all ingredients to constitute an offence have been made out. 7. Insofar as the judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is concerned, in the said case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court was concerned with the offences under section 3(2)(v) of the said Act. It can be seen that the said provision specifically provides that it has to be committed against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. The same is the view taken by me in the aforesaid case where the Legislature intended that the intention or ground has to be an ingredient of the offence and the Legislature has specifically provided for the same. 8. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed on the said judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in my view, is of no assistance to the 5 case of the present applicant. The Revision Application is, therefore, found to be without any merit and, as such, is dismissed. B. R. GAVAI, J.