..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.8450 OF 2005 Sanjay Jaysingrao Sarnaik. ..Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Amol Patankar, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 8th August, 2008. DATED : 8th August, 2008. DATED : 8th August, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.87 of 2005 of Shahupuri police station, Kolhapur. The said case is under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, under Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act and under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. The applicant has also sought quashing of the said case. 3. It is the case of complainant that the ..(2).. applicant abused him with reference to his caste. I have perused the said complaint. In the complaint, there is no reference to the caste of the accused person. It is noticed that the complainant has not stated anywhere that the accused persons do not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 4. Useful reference can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Ashabala Ashabala Ashabala Ganeshrao Khote & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra Ganeshrao Khote & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra Ganeshrao Khote & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1992(2) Mh.L.J. page-36 1992(2) Mh.L.J. page-36 1992(2) Mh.L.J. page-36, wherein this Court has held that Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, contemplates that the prosecution must establish that accused was not member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and the person aggrieved was the member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. This is the important ingredient to establish offence under Section 3 of the Act. There must be specific material with respect to both these aspects. 5. In the present case, the complainant in her FIR has not stated the caste of the accused ..(3).. persons. To attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 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 a Scheduled Tribe and addressed to the person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, 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 do not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, it would not disclose an offence in terms of the said sections. 6. In the present case, the complaint is totally silent about the caste of the accused ..(4).. persons. 7. The FIR is also under Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. The said Section provides for punishment where a person insults or attempts to insult on the ground of untouchability a member of scheduled caste. The above reasoning about the necessity of mentioning the caste of the complainant as well as the accused in the FIR would also apply to Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. 8. Looking to the above facts, the FIR being C.R.No.87 of 2005 of Shahupuri police station, Kolhapur and the proceedings relating thereto are quashed. In view of these facts, the prayer for anticipatory bail does not survive. 9. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)