1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2160 OF 2005 Rajiv Ram Bhadbhade .. Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. --- Mr. V. T. Tulpule i/by Harshad Bhadbhade for the Petitioner. Ms. P.H. Kantharia, APP for the Respondent -State. --- CORAM : J. N. PATEL AND A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 05TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. : 1. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is acquitted of the charge under section 376 of IPC and therefore, he does not want to prosecute the petition. 2. We are informed that initially C.R.No. 64 of 2005 which came to be registered against the petitioner consisted of allegations which attracted sections 3(ii),(v), (xi) (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with sections 376 & 376(d), 323 and 506 of 2 the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the complaint lodged by Smt. Shaila Uttam Jadhav. The chargesheet in the case came to be filed against the petitioner and his case was committed to the court of sessions. The petitioner was tried for having committed the offences under sections 376, 376(d) read with 323 & 506 of the IPC excluding the offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, i.e. The Schedule Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioner has tendered a copy of the deposition of the complainant -Shaila Uttam Jadhav which came to be recorded at Exh. 23 in Sessions Case No. 162/2008. The said copy of the deposition is taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification. In the trial, the complainant has turned hostile and the learned trial court has exonerated the petitioner. This fact situation is not disputed on behalf of the respondent -State. 3. In our opinion, the complainant having turned hostile, resulting in acquittal of the petitioner, nothing survives in the matter and the offence which came to be registered against the petitioner at the behest of the FIR lodged by the complainant which is annexed at Exh. ‘A’ to the petition, particularly, in respect 3 of the offence under section 3(ii),(v),(xi)(xii) of the S.C.& S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, there is no question of the petitioner being again prosecuted for the said offences as substantial charge against the petitioner was in respect of having raped the victim Shaila Uttam Jadhav, particularly, when the petitioner stands acquitted under the substantial charge of having committed offence under section 376, 376(d), 323, 506 of the IPC, which attracted the provisions of Sections 3(ii),(v)(xi)(xii) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as the complainant Shaila Uttam Jadhav belongs to Schedule Caste. 4. As the petition otherwise became infructuous but in the facts of the case we quash the FIR/C.R. No. 64 of 2005 for the offence registered against the petitioner for having committed the offence under sections 3(ii),(v),(xi),(xii) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 5. The petition stands dismissed as infructuous and accordingly disposed of. (J.N. Patel,J.) (A.A. Sayed,J.)