:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4070 OF 2008 Rahul Punjabrao Deshmukh ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr. Gajendra Jadhav for applicant. Ms. A.A. Mane, APP for State. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. Date : November 17, 2008. Date : November 17, 2008. Date : November 17, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking quashing of C.R. No.556 of 2008 registered with Powai Police Station. The said case is under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 504 and 506(II) of I.P.C. 3. In the present case, it is seen that the :2: incident had occurred on 23/10/2008 and the F.I.R. has been lodged on 4/11/2008. There is delay in lodging the F.I.R. This inordinate delay itself creates a doubt in the mind regarding the veracity of the complaint. 4. In addition to the above, it is noticed that the complainant had not stated anywhere that the applicant-accused does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Thus the caste of the accused has not been brought on record. 5. If the caste of the accused is not disclosed in the F.I.R., the police authorities could not be said to have any material to invoke the powers under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. and to commence investigation, considering the complaint to be a cognizable complaint. Useful reference may be made to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court (V.K. Barde and A.P. Deshpande, JJ.) dated 20th April, 2001 in the case of Anant Vasantlal Sambre V. State of Maharashtra, in Cri. W.P. No. 49 of 2001, in which it was held that if the FIR does not contain an :3: averment that the accused does not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the offence under Section 3 of the Atrocities Act, cannot be registered. 6. Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view shall be punishable with imprisonment. A Division Bench of this Court (R.M.S. Khandeparkar and Smt. V.K. Tahilramani,JJ.) in the case of Subhadra Sushil Anand and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1019 of 2007 decided on 13.9.2007, has held that "plain reading of the provisions of law comprised under Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act therefore would reveal that in order to enable the police to take cognizance of the offence committed under the said provisions of law, it would be necessary for the complainant to disclose that the person who is accused of commission of offence under the said Act is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and :4: that he intentionally insults or intimidates with intend to humiliate the complainant or any other person who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and lastly that such incident should occur in public view. In other words, the complaint has not only to reveal the caste of the person who is sought to be insulted or intimidated or humiliated but he should also disclose that such person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and simultaneously the complaint should also reveal that the person who is accused of commission of such offence does not belong either to a Scheduled caste or to a Scheduled Tribe. It is only when the accusation with an intention to insult or intimidate or to humiliate has been made by a person not belonging either to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and addressed to the person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, and such incident occurs in public view, only in that case, he could be said to have committed an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the said Act and not otherwise. Obviously, therefore, if the complaint does not disclose that the accused person does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled :5: Tribe, it would not disclose an offence in terms of the said section." 7. In the present case, the complaint is totally silent about the caste of the accused persons. In the absence of essential facts, it cannot be said that any case is made out under the SC & ST Act. 8. As far as offences under Sections 504 and 506 (II) of IPC are concerned, as stated earlier, in the present case there is delay of 10 days in lodging the complaint and the said delay has not been satisfactorily explained. Looking to all the above facts, I find much merit in the submission of the learned Advocate for the applicant-accused that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by way of an after thought. Looking to the above facts, in my view, a case is made out to quash the C.R. 9. Hence, C.R. No. 556 of 2008 registered with Powai Police Station, Mumbai and the proceedings relating thereto are quashed. Application is disposed :6: of accordingly. (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.) (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.) (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.)