The petitioners are accused and an F.I.R. has been registered against them, inter alia, under Sec.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'the Act') and Sec.324 read with Sec.34 of the IPC. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners have, in these circumstances, come to this Court with a prayer that the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the F.I.R. registered against them.

2. What are the reasons? Two reasons are urged. First of all, it is said that the F.I.R. does not specifically reveal that the complainant is a member of the Scheduled Caste or that the accused do not belong to any Scheduled Caste. Relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Manohar M. Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra (2005 CRI.L.J. 4653), it is contended that when the First Information Statement is bereft of such vital details, the F.I.R. can be quashed.

3. Secondly and alternatively, it is contended that the parties have settled their disputes. The de facto complainant has not been arrayed as a party in this Crl.M.C. But it is submitted that an agreement has been entered into with the de facto complainant under which all the disputes have been settled amicably between the parties. Reliance was placed on the decision in Karunakar Nayak v. State of Orissa (2005 CRI.L.J. 4430) to contend that the powers under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked to prematurely terminate the proceedings in a prosecution under Sec.3 of the Act.

4. I have carefully perused the averments in the First Information Statement. Of course, a specific statement that the victim/complainant does belong to the Scheduled Caste is not specifically made. But a total reading of the First Information Statement leaves no semblance of doubt that the crux of the allegation is that the complainant who belongs to the Scheduled Caste was assaulted and insulted by the petitioners. First Information Statement is not an encyclopedia. It is not to be reckoned as part of the pleadings of parties before courts. An F.I.R. is the natural and spontaneous reaction of a victim to a crime committed against him. He is not a legal expert. He cannot, in a complaint given by him to the police with the intention of triggering the police to take action, be expected to narrate all the ingredients of the offences especially in complicated and technical offences committed. It is crucial to note that the petitioners have no contention that they do also belong to the Scheduled Caste. It is crucially relevant that the petitioners have no case that the complainant does not belong to any Scheduled Caste. In these circumstances, I am of opinion that it will be incorrect, improper and myopic to quash the F.I.R. for the short reason that the complainant has omitted to narrate all legal ingredients of the offence carefully in the complaint filed by him. Annexure-A1 - First Information Statement, it is crucial to note, was lodged by the victim who was undergoing treatment in the hospital. It is for the police officer to question him closely and bring out all the relevant details to justify the registration of the F.I.R. under the appropriate sections. If the police officer who recorded the First Information Statement has committed default in discharging that duty, that cannot, at any rate, persuade a court to invoke its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. It may be the yard stick which a court may employ when it considers averments in a complaint or the final report submitted by the police after investigation. At any rate, quashing of the F.I.R. for this reason may not be justified. If the decision of the Bombay High Court referred above were to be interpreted to mean that such inadequacy in the F.I.R. must in all cases invariably result in quashing of the F.I.R., I must respectfully disagree with such a dictum. The first contention cannot hence succeed.

5. The next contention raised is that composition of t