(1) CRI.APP. 2570.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2570 OF 2010 1. Hakim S/o Gulab Pathan Age : 20 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o. Lalbag, Tq. and Dist. Jalna 2. Gulabkha Rajakkha Pathan, Age : 55 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o. as above 3. Mumtaj Gulabkha Pathan, Age : 50 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o. as above .. Applicants VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Investigation Officer, Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jalna, Dist. Jalna (Copy to be served on P.P. of High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) 2. Kavita w/o. Mahadev Khandale Age : 35 years, Occu.: Household, R/o. Lalbag, Tq. and Dist. Jalna .. Respondents Mr. R.V. Gore, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent-State Mr. A.K. Chitnis, Advocate for the respondent no.2 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. By consent, the Application is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. (2) CRI.APP. 2570.2010 2. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and respondent no.2 and learned APP for the State. 3. Perusal of the FIR filed by respondent no.2 (complainant) purports to show that on 9.6.2010, the applicants barged into her house at about 4.00 – 4.30 pm. The applicant no.1 allegedly hugged the respondent no.2 (complainant) and told her that he would keep her as concubine. The applicants no. 2 and 3 allegedly held her at the relevant time whereas the applicant no.1 outraged her modesty and also assaulted her by means of a knife. It is also alleged that the applicants no. 2 and 3 abused the respondent no.2 by stating that she was of inferior caste and used abusive language such as 'Halkat' ('gkydV'). 4. The FIR is registered on basis of private complaint which was referred to the Police Station under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (3) CRI.APP. 2570.2010 5. The learned Advocate for the applicants restricts the challenge to the FIR only to the extent of offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. 6. Assuming that whatever accusations made in the FIR are required to be accepted as they stand then also it is difficult to infer that the offence may come within the ambit of section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the said Act") or under the provisions of section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The main reason is that the applicants allegedly intruded in the residential house of the respondent no.2 (complainant) and addressed the so-called abusive language to her. That was not in the public view nor anybody was present in the house except the respondent no.2 as per her complaint. So far as the (4) CRI.APP. 2570.2010 remaining part of the FIR is concerned, the investigation machinery may proceed with the investigation but as regards the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the said Act is concerned, in view of "Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare and anr. V. State of Maharashtra 2005(4) Crimes 659" and "Udaysingh Ramsingh Pawar V. State of Maharashtra and anr. 2009(2) B Cr C 750", there does not appear any material to infer commission of the offence under the said acts. 7. In the result, the Application is partly allowed and the FIR only to the extent of offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 stands quashed though it may be considered unaffected to the extent of remaining part thereof. Application disposed of. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp