DAGADU GORAKH PATIL Vs. SHIVAJI JETHYA WALVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel waives service. By consent, heard finally. The petitioners are the accused in RCC No. 7/2012 filed by the respondent herein (for the sake of convenience and clarity the respondent hereinafter be referred to as 'the complainant') alleging commission of various offences such as forgery, cheating, including the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC and ST Act'). The learned Magistrate, after examining the complainant and his witnesses on oath, issued process requiring the petitioners to appear and to answer to the charge of an offence punishable u/s. 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners approached the Court of Sessions by filing an application for revision. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the revision, came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Magistrate was proper and legal. Holding so, he dismissed the Revision Application. It is under these circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court by invoking its Constitutional jurisdiction, and praying that the order issuing process and prosecution of the petitioners vide the said case, be quashed.

(2.) Three contentions are raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the petition. The first contention advanced by him is that, as the complaint does not mention either the caste of the accused persons, or that of the complainant, process could not have been issued. He sought to place reliance on some authoritative pronouncements wherein such a view was taken. However, the learned counsel for the complainant has drawn my attention to the Full Bench decision rendered by this Court in Pushpa Vijay Bonde Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 2 BCR(Cri) 32He has also drawn my attention to a decision delivered by the Supreme Court of India in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 1 BCR(Cri) 779 A reading of these two pronouncements leaves no manner doubt that, it would not be essential for a complainant to mention, either his own caste or that of the accused, in the complaint or in the First Information Report and that; on the ground that caste is not so mentioned, the proceedings cannot be quashed.

(3.) The second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the alleged incident has not taken place in 'public view' and therefore, the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s. 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST Act are not attracted. I have examined this aspect of the matter. In the complaint, there is a specific averment that the incident has taken place in presence of all the employees and students who were present at the place where the offences allegedly took place. The basis for claiming that the incident has not taken place in 'public view' is that, one of the witnesses of the complainant who was examined before Magistrate before issuance of process has given a version which is conflicting with the version given in the complaint. It is also submitted that there is some vagueness in the statement of the complainant and witnesses recorded by the Magistrate before issuing process on this aspect viz.: whether the incident has taken place in public view. I do not think that there is a case for quashing the complaint on the ground that it does not disclose an essential ingredient of the alleged offence. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that there is some ambiguity on this aspect, when the complainant categorically states that the incident took place in presence of the members of the staff and students, it would not be possible to discard such specific averment in the complaint on the basis that, the statements recorded by the Magistrate before issuance of the process do not support this aspect. This would necessarily be a matter to be decided on the basis of evidence as may be adduced before the Magistrate during the inquiry and the subsequent trial, if any.