S P RAMDASI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned advocate for the applicant-original accused no. 2 and the learned APP for the State.

(2.) THE applicant is seeking quashing of FIR being CR No. 51 of 2001 of Manikpur Police Station. The said case is under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. I have perused the FIR and the other material. The case of the complainant is that she belongs to Baudha community. There was some dispute in relation to water between the complainant and the accused persons, hence, on account of the said dispute on 8. 6. 2001 both the accused persons i. e. accused no. 1 Gul Bajaj and accused no. 2 i. e. the present applicant abused the complainant with reference to her caste.

(3.) IT is noticed that the complainant has not stated anywhere that the accused persons do not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Their caste certificates have also not been produced by the prosecution. Thus, the caste of the accused person has not been brought on record. It is incumbent on the part of the prosecution to bring on record the caste of not only the complainant but also of the accused. Useful reference can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Ashabala Ganeshrao Khote and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1992 (2) Mh. L. J. page-36), wherein this Court has held that Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, contemplates that the prosecution must establish that accused was not member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and the person aggrieved was the member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. This is the important ingredient to establish offence under Section 3 of the Act. There must be specific material with respect to both these aspects. In para-8 of the said Judgment, this Court observed that the prosecution ought to have brought on record the caste certificate of both the parties to prove their allegations.