BIBISHAN MARUTI ANARSE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing immediately.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) The respondent No. 3 Gangaram lodged report at Police Station Karjat, dist. Ahmednagar on 6-6-2006 alleging that his wife had filed a complaint against one Vikram Maroti, under Bombay Money Lending Act and the offence was registered against him. On 4-6-2006 at about. 5. 30 p. m. respondent No. 3, his brother Janardhan, and cousin Vithal Londhe were chit-chating by the side of the road. At that time accused Vikram, Bibishan and Manohar came to that side on a motor cycle and stopped near them. All the accused persons abused and insulted respondent No. 3 in the name of caste by calling him Mangtya. They also physically man-handled and beat the complainant with fist and kick blows. His wife tried to intervene but she was also beaten. On the basis of the report lodged by the respondent No. 3, offence was registered under sections 324, 504, 506, indian Penal Code and under section 3 (l) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Atrocities Act for the sake of brevity) and under section 7 (1) (d) of Protection, of Civil Rights Act (Civil Rights act for brevity). The present applicants, who are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the said crime, have preferred this writ petition seeking to quash the F. I. R. alleging that the report was lodged falsely because of previous enmity and secondly in the body of the F. I. R. respondent No. 3-the complainant has not disclosed his caste and therefore, the provisions of the Atrocities Act and Civil Rights Act cannot be invoked.