S.S. SHINDE, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. This Application is filed taking exception to the FIR bearing Crime No.I-129/2017 registered on 19th April, 2017, with Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) (11) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989, and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) (w) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Amendment Act, 2015.

3. It is the case of the applicant that he hails from reputed family of Ahmednagar District, so also, the applicant is engaged in the wholesale business of selling various types of liquor brands. Respondent no.2 has lodged false, frivolous, concocted and imaginary complaint against the applicant.

The applicant is carrying the business of FL-1 in the name of Kalpataru Traders in Ahmednagar District. The applicant is engaged in the wholesale Distributorship of the various brands of the Beers viz. Knock Out, Foster, Howards 5000 etc. in Ahmednagar District. The applicant is supplying goods to the various Retailers. The applicant used to supply the goods in favour of the retailers on credit basis. There is no single complaint registered against the applicant by any of the traders or independent person. Apart from the Retailers, the applicant has also supplied the goods in favour of respondent no.2, who is the Proprietor of Ashish Beer Shop, Burudgaon. The Competent Authority has issued the FL-BR-II License in favour of respondent no.2, so as to sell the Beers or Wine in sealed bottles used for off consumption.

4. It is further the case of the applicant that he has supplied the goods (Beers) to respondent no.2, between 16th April, 2016 to 17th February, 2017. In spite of supply of goods, respondent no.2 has not paid the amount towards such supply of goods to the applicant regularly. The applicant has placed the copies of the Tax Invoices on record. There was outstanding to the tune of Rs.79,462.03 against respondent no.2. Accordingly, the applicant has requested respondent no.2 to pay alleged outstanding. Upon request made by the applicant, respondent no.2 issued various cheques in the name of the Firm of the applicant. The details of the various cheques issued by respondent no.2 in favour of the applicant, are mentioned in the application. It is the case of the applicant that all cheques issued by respondent no.2 were dishonoured. In the meanwhile, license of respondent no.2 was suspended by the Excise Department of the State Government, on the count that respondent no.2 used to sell the beer for excess MRP than the MRP printed on the bottle containing beer.

5. It is further the case of the applicant that on 15th December, 2016, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to pass order, thereby prohibiting the sale of liquor within the distance of 500 meters from the National/State Highways. The shop of respondent no.2 is outside the prohibited distance from the National/State Highway. After the order passed by the Apex Court, the shop holders, whose shop has been situate more than 500 meters distance from the State/National Highways, have taken interest in their business as the most of the shops within the radius of 500 meters from the State/National Highways were closed, in view of the order passed by the Apex Court. Respondent no.2 got renewed the license even if a serious charge was noted against her in the month of April, 2017. After renewal of license, respondent no.2 requested the applicant for supply of goods on credit. The applicant had refused to supply the goods on credit, and requested respondent no.2 to pay the outstanding against her.

6. It is the case of the applicant that as respondent no.2 did not pay the outstanding amount of the applicant, the applicant has bona fidely posted the message on their what’s-App group blacklisting the lic