JUDGMENT :. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Salunke, appearing for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Son wane for the State. Rule, made returnable forthwith. With the consent of patties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The applicant, who is alleged to be accused in C.R. No.204/2005, preferred this application Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the F.I.R. to the extent of offences under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Atrocities Act, for the sake of brevity). 3. Respondent no.2 lodged F.I.R. with police station Ambejogai, on the basis of which, said crime was registered for the offences under Sections 154, 324, 506 read with 34 of IPC as well as offence under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Atrocities Act. 4. The incident was alleged to have taken place on 20th July, 2005 at 9.00 a.m. The informant alleged that she has alienated 17 gunthas of land to one Nandlal Pardeshi, but did not deliver possession of that property. On the date of incident, the complainant, alongwith her husband had gone to the field to carry out sowing operations. Nandlal and present applicant were in their fields and they were pelting some stones in the complainant's land. When the informant/complainant objected for the same. Nandlal caught her hand and questioned her as to How much amount she wants. This applicant, who was present there had also caught her hand and told her that as she belongs to a 'Mang' community, by catching her hands it makes no difference. Some neighbours came there, so the assailants ran away. The informant in the complaint alleged that she belongs to 'Mang' community. On receipt of this complaint, Investigating Officer registered the crime for the offences under Section 3(x) and 3(xi) of the Atrocities Act as well as offences under Sections 354, 324, 506 read with 34 or IPC. By preferring this application, legality of registration of the crime for the offence under the provisions of Atrocities Act was challenged and applicant seeks relief to quash the said F.I.R. so far it relates to registration of offences under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Atrocities Act. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. By preferring this application, legality of registration of the crime for the offence under the provisions of Atrocities Act was challenged and applicant seeks relief to quash the said F.I.R. so far it relates to registration of offences under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Atrocities Act. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Salunke submitted that the offences under Section 3 of the Atrocities Act are punishable, even those are committed by the offenders who are not the members of a Scheduled Caste. Though the complainant disclosed her caste in her complaint, there are no allegations that the present applicant is not a member of a scheduled castes. So, according to Mr. Salunke, as the caste of the offenders is not disclosed in the complaint, the offence under the Atrocities Act is not disclosed. So, the F.I.R. registered for the offences under Section 3(x) and (xi) of the Atrocities Act, needs to be quashed. 6. Learned APP Mr. Sonwane submitted that the informant disclosed her caste and she is a member of scheduled castes, the offence being commi1fed against a member of scheduled caste, the Investigating Officer was justified in registration of the crime. On behalf of the informant/Respondent No.2, affidavit in reply is filed, wherein it is alleged that the informant being a member of scheduled castes, the applicant, who does not belong to a member of Scheduled Castes, deliberately assaulted and abused the complainant, as such, the offence is made out, the F.I.R. need not to be quashed. 7. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , laid down the law that as to when inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised. It has been laid down that these powers should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. As many as seven tests were laid down before exercising the powers and one of the tests is that where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted do not prima facie constitute the offence, then the powers can be exercised under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 8. In the case of R. P. Kapur Vs. In the case of R. P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 , it is laid down that where the allegations in the First Information Report of the complaint: even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciation evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. So the ratio in these two cases makes it clear that, if the allegations made in the complaint, even if accepted, do not constitute offence then inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised. 9. With the background of the ratio in above cases, it has to be seen whether allegations made in the F.I.R. of the present case, offence under Section 3(x) and (xi) is disclosed or not. In the F.I.R., it is alleged that the present applicant and one Nandlal had caught hold the hand of Respondent no.2 and assaulted her, referring her caste as Mang which is recognized as scheduled caste. These allegations constitute an offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. However, the accused/applicant did not make any request to quash the F.I.R. in so far as it relates to registration of the offences under the Indian Penal Code. Only submission made is that as the F.I.R. does not disclose caste of the offenders so as to say that they are not the member of scheduled castes and, therefore, the offence under Section 3 of the Atrocities Act cannot be said to have been made out against the applicant. Reference to provisions contained in Section 3(x) and (xi) of the Atrocities Act is essential at this stage, which read as under: "Section 3(1) - Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, (i) ...................................... (ii) ....... ........................... .... (iii) ..... ................................. (iv) ...................................... (v) ............. .......................... (vi) ....................................... (vii) ....................................... (viii) ....................................... (ix) ............ .......................... (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; (xi) assaults arises force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty;" 10. .......................... (vi) ....................................... (vii) ....................................... (viii) ....................................... (ix) ............ .......................... (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; (xi) assaults arises force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty;" 10. The plain reading of the Section makes it clear that the offence alleged is a offence committed as against a member of a Scheduled Castes by the person who do not belong to members of a Scheduled Castes, then the F.I.R. must disclose that the offence committed by the members, who do not belong to a Scheduled Castes and the offence is committed against a member of a Scheduled Caste. In the complaint of the matter in hand, the complainant/informant disclosed her caste and there is no dispute that she is a member of a Scheduled Caste. However, in the complaint, there is not whisper as regards the caste of the offenders including the present applicant saying that the offenders are not the members of a Scheduled Castes, unless the specific allegations are set out in the complaint it cannot be presumed that the offenders were not the members of a Scheduled Castes. 11. This Court in the case of Manohar s/o. Martandrao Kulkarni and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in 2005(4) Mh.L.J. 588 : [2005 ALL MR (Cri) 2602], took the view that where the caste of the complainant and/or the accused is not contained in the body of the F.I.R., there can be no registration of a crime under the Atrocities Act and all investigations and further Court proceedings on the basis of such F.I.R., cannot be maintained in law. Such First Information Reports and Court proceedings on the basis of crimes registered on the basis of such First Information Reports will, therefore, have to be quashed and set aside. The present case is squarely covered by the said decision. In the present case, the F.I.R. does not disclose the offence under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Atrocities Act, therefore, registration of the crime under the said Sections of the Atrocities Act is illegal and, therefore, to that extent, the said F.I.R. needs to be quashed. The present case is squarely covered by the said decision. In the present case, the F.I.R. does not disclose the offence under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Atrocities Act, therefore, registration of the crime under the said Sections of the Atrocities Act is illegal and, therefore, to that extent, the said F.I.R. needs to be quashed. However, since the F.I.R. discloses the offences under the sections of IPC, as mentioned in F.I.R., the prosecution is at liberty to investigate the said offences and submit appropriate report to that effect. 12. In this view of the matter, the application is allowed. The F.I.R. and further proceedings of C.R.No.204/2005, registered against the applicant at Police Station Ambajogai, in so far as it relates to registration of offences under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(I)(xi) of the Atrocities Act, is hereby quashed and set aside and making it clear that the respondent/prosecution is at liberty to investigate the said crime so far as it relates to registration of the offences under Sections 354, 324, and 506 read with 34 of IPC. 13. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.