JUDGMENT:- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of the parties.

2. The present petition is filed for quashing of First Information Report so far as it relates to registration of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as SC and ST Act).

3. The relevant facts in nutshell are that complainant Prabhakar Ramchandra Dalvi (Respondent No.2) belongs to Chambhar caste. Previously he had filed a complaint against nephew of present petitioner. On 1st March, 2006, respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner with Shrigonda Police, alleging that on that day, at about 7.30 p.m. in the evening, his daughters-in-laws namely Urmila and Jayshree were at the house. At that time, petitioner came to their house and started giving abuses by referring to their caste. The petitioner also threatened the inmates of dire consequences and damaged Maruti Car No. MJF-747 by breaking its glass. This information was given to respondent No.2 when he returned to the house at about 8.00 p.m. While the incident was being narrated to respondent No.2, the petitioner and his brother Haribhau were shouting from their vasti and were insulting respondent No.2 with reference to his Chambhar caste. On the basis of this report, an offence, punishable under Sections 504, 506, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST Act, came to be registered against the petitioner.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that previously respondent No.2 had filed a complaint in respect of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST Act, against nephew of the petitioner. Accused in that case approached this Court. This court quashed the F.I.R. in that case so far as it relates to registration of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST Act, on the ground that caste of the complainant was not mentioned in the F.I.R. According to learned Counsel, for registration of an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST Act, it has to be shown that (i) the complainant belongs to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled tribes: (ii) that the offender does not belong to Scheduled Caste of Scheduled Tribe and (iii) that the victim had insulted him within public view. According to learned Counsel, in the present case it can be seen from recitals of the F.I.R. that the complainant or members of his family were not insulted within the public view. Therefore, the F.LR., so far as it relates to registration of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST Act, deserves to be quashed.

5. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 has argued the matter elaborately. According to learned Counsel, Respondent No.2 has made a specific reference in the F.I.R. to his caste and caste of the petitioner. The recitals of the F.I.R. show that the members of Respondents family were insulted within public view. Therefore, prayer for quashing the portion of F.I.R. relating to registration of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST Act, cannot be sustained.

6. According to learned Public Prosecutor Shri. Sawant, in the present case, requirements of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST Act are satisfied by the recitals of F.I.R. Therefore, offence in question was properly registered. In this view of the matter, interference of this Court is not called for.

7. At this stage, it may be pertinent to refer to earlier judgment of this Court in the matter of Ananta Vasant Sambhare Vs. State of Maharashtra, delivered in Criminal Writ Petition No.45/2001 on 20th April, 2001. In that case, Division Bench of this Court held that unless caste of the complainant is mentioned in the ELR. requirements of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST Act are not satisfied, therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST Act, cannot be registered. At this juncture, it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document