DEOJI AMBU PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed for quashing the first information report lodged by the respondent No. 4 against the petitioner inter alia alleging that the petitioner is liable to be punished for offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Ac t ). In the first information report it was stated that on 28-3-1995 at about 9. 30 p. m. the respondent No. 4 alongwith his friends went to the hotel owned by the petitioner for meals. At that time the manager of the hotel, one Shri Nagpure was present. The petitioner was also present. The respondent No. 4 wanted to have food in the hotel of the petitioner but the petitioner is said to have told the respondent No. 4 that the hotel is closed and that he would not give food to "mahar". The respondent No. 4, therefore, filed his complaint to the police alleging that he was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the petitioner to humilitate him and as such he is liable to be punished for offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. The respondent No. 3 took cognizance of the offence alleged and registered the offence at Crime No. 118 of 1995.

(2.) IT may be stated that the aforesaid allegations made in the first information report are quite sufficient to constitute the offence as alleged and therefore it will not be proper for the High Court to quash the proceedings.

(3.) MR. Hon. learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to contend that the respondent No. 4 professes Buddhism and therefore, he cannot maintain action for the alleged offence under the provisions of the Act. There is absolutely no material to accept this fact as sought to be argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, the jursidiction of the High Court is limited to examine the allegations in the first information report when it is sought to be contended that the F. I. R. does not contain allegations constituting the alleged offence. In the present case as seen earlier the allegations in the F. I. R. clearly constitute the alleged offence and as such the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is also devoid of any force.