1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4314 OF 2008 Ganesh Sahadeo Wanare & 2 ors -vs- State of Maharashtra & another. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri R.M.Daga, Advocate for applicant. Shri T.V. APP for respondent-State. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : DECEMBER 18, 2008. On the previous date the learned counsel for the applicant had taken time to verify whether the applicant would like to withdraw the application or press it further. Today, he has engaged another counsel to argue the matter. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State. The applicants seek quashing of FIR whereby an offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Penal Code and 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention and Atrocities)Act, 1989, were registered against the applicants on 2/12/2008. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR does not disclose ingredients of offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention and Atrocities)Act. He submitted that the statement which attributed to all the accused would not constitute of an offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled 2 Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention and Atrocities) Act. For this purpose, he has placed reliance upon Shashikant Ramhari Tambe's ..vs.. State of Maharashtra reported at 2008 ALL MR(cri)3232. In that case the complainant had made general allegations against all the seven accused persons that they had abused the complainant with regard to her caste. In the present case, the complainant had stated that when the monthly meeting of Gram Panchayat was going on, applicant No.3 Sandhya had called the complainant “ Mangtya” After this meeting was over, applicants no. 1 & 2 are alleged to have come to place of Gram Panchayat office and again abused the complainant by “Mangtya” Thus, it is note that general allegations have made against several persons. Therefore, the judgment of Shashikant's case is not applicable. The learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that there is nothing in the FIR to show that incident had taken place in public view as is required for constituting of an offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention and Atrocities)Act. He submitted that therefore, the FIR ought to be quashed and for this purpose, he has placed reliance on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare & another ...vs.. State of Maharashtra reported at 2005 ALL MR(Cri)1948. As far as the proposition in para 8 of the judgment, that the complaint disclosing absence of both or even any one of ingredients, namely, within public view, and the act of an insult intimidation, would be in sufficient to accuse the person of having committed an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention and Atrocities) Act, is unexceptionable. However from the reported judgment it is 3 not clear as to where the incident in question had taken place. The same is the case of a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gorige Pentiah ..vs.. State of A. P. and others 320. It is not shown as to where the incident had taken place. On the other hand, in the present case the incident has is stated to have taken place in the Gram Panchayat Office after the monthly meeting was over and the officials and members of Gram Panchyat was have been present at spot, which fact would have to be probed in the course of investigation. In view of this, no case for quashing and setting aside FIR in relation to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention and Atrocities)Act, is made out. As far as other allegations are concerned, they need to be probed, as also the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention and Atrocities) Act. There is no question of grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants given the nature of allegations made. The Investigating Officer would of course consider whether the arrest of the applicants is at all necessary since the allegation is only in respect of a verbal tirade. If nothing is to be recovered, a formal arrest of the applicant may serve survive the purpose. The application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE andurkar.