R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.

( 1 ) HEARD. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

( 2 ) THE petitioners seek to quash the FIR No. 640 of 2004 dated 25th november, 2004 registered at Jogeshwari Police Station, Mumbai, on the ground that the same does not disclose any offence having been committed by the petitioners under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called as "the said Act".

( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that one Ankush Ramchandra Jadhav was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 12th June, 1989 in Arvind Gandbhir High school run by Jogeshwari Education Society wherein the petitioner No. 1 is the head Mistress since 1999, and prior to that, she was Assistant Head Mistress since 1997. The petitioner No. 2 is a Tax Consultant since the year 1992 and is working as Hon. Secretary of the said High School. The services of Ankush jadhav were terminated in a disciplinary proceedings against him. However, pursuant to the order of the School Tribunal, he was reinstated in the service. After the termination of his services and till he was reinstated in accordance with the order of School Tribunal, the said Jadhav was working in Gyaneshwar vidyalaya, Wadala, from 13th June, 1990 to 31st October, 1993. When the said fact was revealed to the Management of Jogeshwari Education Society, his services were decided to be terminated by getting order from the School Tribunal set aside. However, the matter was amicably settled between the parties.

( 4 ) THE said Ankush Jadhav was appointed in the post of Assistant Teacher and was placed in the trained under graduate pay scale, consequent to which, a dispute arose between the parties which led to the filing of the complaint being c. R. No. 1165 of 2003. The petitioner No. 1 was initially arrested and later on, he was released on bail. The said Jadhav filed another C. R. No. 640 of 2004, i. e. the impugned C. R. , against the petitioners under section 3 (l) (x) of the said Act on 25th November, 2004. Hence the present petition.

( 5 ) REFERRING to the impugned FIR, it is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners that the same does not disclose any allegation which can constitute an offence either under section 3 (1 ) (x) or any other provision of the said Act. The expression "mazlas KAY THEDGYA?" referred to in the said FIR does not relate to either of the petitioners but it is stated to have been uttered by one a. shok Raikar, who is not arrayed as the accused in relation to the said FIR. Obviously, therefore, the said expression nowhere discloses any offence by the petitioners. The learned APP, however, referring to the latter part of the FIR has submitted that the contents thereof clearly disclose intentional insult and intimidation with intent to humiliate the complainant in the public place, more particularly when it is disclosed that the petitioner No. 2 had stated that "by lodging false case under Atrocity Act against us, you have really shown your real caste. " This expression, according to the learned APP, obviously, discloses insult to the complainant, he being belonging to the scheduled caste, and therefore, there is no case for interference in the FIR.

( 6 ) PERUSAL of the FIR, indeed apparently discloses that the same does not contain any allegation which can constitute an offence under any of the provisions of the said Act against the petitioner No. 1. The same not even discloses any attempt on the part of the petitioner No. 1 to commit an offence under any of the provisions of the said Act. In fact, it does not disclose the petitioner No. 1 having uttered a single word which could cause an intimidation or insult to the complainant on account of being member of the scheduled caste. Hence, the petition as far as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned is to be allowed.

( 7 ) AS regards the petitioner No. 2, undoubtedly, there is a specific averment that he had stated that by filing the case under