criappln3240.06 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3240 OF 2006 1 Ashok Hiraman Marathe age 35 years, occ. agriculture 2 Suresh Hiraman Patil age 40 years, occ. agriculture 3 Gokul Dayaram Patil age 36 years, occ. agriculture 4 Ramesh Kashinath Patil age 32 years, occ. agriculture 5 Ravindra Kashinath Marathe age 35 years, occ. agriculture All r/o Chinchkheda, Tq. & Dist. Dhule .. APPLICANTS VERSUS 1 State of Maharashtra 2 Ratan Dhondu Pardhi ( Pawar) age 60 years, occ. labour r/o Chinchkheda, Tq. & Dist. Dhule .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, advocate for the applicants. Mrs. Y. M. Kshirsagar, AGP for the State. Mr. A.S. Sawant, advocate for respondent no. 2. ===== CORAM : A.V. POTDAR, J. DATE : 17 th August, 2011 criappln3240.06 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 By this criminal application, the applicants have approached this court praying to quash the First Information Report in Crime No. 324/2006 registered at Dhule Taluka police station for offence punishable under section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act ( in short “Atrocity Act”) and other offence under the Indian Penal Code. 2 It appears that after the application was moved, rule was issued in the application on 28-3-2007. It further appears that further proceedings before the trial Court for offence under the Atrocity Act were stayed by the said order. 3 Learned counsel for the applicants states across the bar that inadvertently, after the charge sheet was filed before the trial Court, the trial was committed before the Special Court. The Special Court also framed charge for offences under the Atrocity Act alongwith offences under the Indian Penal Code. He has further stated across the bar that inadvertently the trial reaches to the fag end as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses criappln3240.06 3 was recorded before the trial Court. It is further submitted that the applicants / accused are yet to be examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the applicants states that at this stage the fact was brought to the notice of the learned trial Court that interim stay to the further proceeding was granted by this court vide order dated 28-3-2007 but as now the trial is at the fag end, because of the stay order dated 28-3-2007, the learned Special Court / trial Court is unable to proceed with the further trial. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants fairly states that considering all these facts, in the interest of justice, he is not pressing the application before this court. In view of this, Criminal Application no. 3240/2006 is disposed of / dismissed for want of prosecution as not pressed. Interim relief granted on 28-3-2007 hereby stands vacated. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Rule discharged. 4 Parties to act on authentic copy of this order duly signed by the associate of the court. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) dyb