1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.588 OF 2009. Sau.Mangalbai W/o Bharat Patil and another ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.Mahesh S.Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.S.Patil,A.P.P.for the Respondent No.1. Mr.Amol Kakade, advocate for the Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 20.08.2009. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge FIR filed by the Respondent No.2 on the basis of which crime No.193/2009, is registered against them for offence U/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 2 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.P.P. 3. The main thrust of the petitioners was on the omission of the Respondent No.2 to state his caste and caste of the petitioners in the FIR. Reliance was, therefore, placed on "Manohar S/o Martandrao Kulkarni and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others" 2005 (4) Mh.L.J. 588. It was also contended that the place of incident could not be regarded as a public place and the incident could not be said to have occurred in the public view. 4. It is well settled that probable defences available to the accused persons can not be regarded as proper foundation to quash the FIR in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. The omission of the Respondent No.2 (complainant) to make a statement about caste of the petitioners is also not of much help and the view taken in case of "Manohar S/o Martandrao Kulkarni and 3 another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others" (supra) is no longer a good law in view of "Ashabai Machindra Adhagale Vs. State of Maharashtra and others" (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 789. Considering these aspects, the petition is not worthy of consideration and is liable to be disposed of. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out, however, that the petitioners were arrested and have been released on bail. The interim relief may be continued till filing of the charge-sheet inasmuch as it is on par with directions U/s 438 of the Cr.P.C. It is made clear that bail granted to the petitioners would come to an end on filing of the charge-sheet and they may seek further relief from the appropriate Court if charge-sheet is filed against them. The petition is dismissed accordingly. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp58809