JUDGMENT: 1. Rule, heard finally with consent of parties. 2. The applicants seek to quash the F.I.R. No.83/2006 registered by Police Station Telhara, Distt.Akola. 3. A few facts may be given as follows - On 23/11/2006, the complainant Sadanand, his brothers Devanand and Shankar had come to Telhara court to appear before the magistrate in a case under Section 324 of I.P.Code. In the evening, on their way back home to village, they came to the Auto rickshaw stand at Telhara. While they were standing there, it is alleged that, they were assaulted by Sudhir Chatare, Shriram Chatare and Prashant Chatare. They abused them saying 'Mahare, Dhedge' etc. It is also urged that Sudhir Chatare assaulted Sadanand Poharkar with some weapon by which Sadanand suffered injury. It is next alleged that the accused persons belong to Maratha community. It is this F.I.R. that is sought to be quashed. 4. The Supreme Court in Bajanlal's case reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (State of Haryana .vs. Bhajanlal and others) has laid down the guidelines for quashing of the F.I.R. Those are as follows - The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.. It was contended that this F.I.R. is an abuse of process of law. Shri Mirza, the learned counsel for the applicant, contended that even prima facie the provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act do not apply, in as much as, the complainant gives out his caste as Boudha. There is no doubt that in this F.I.R. the caste is given as Boudha. It is well-known fact that all those who were professing Hindu religion and belonged to Mahar caste have embrassed Budhism. Although they have so adopted Boudha religion, the Society it seems unfortunately, still considers them as Mahar i.e. untouchable. There is no doubt that in this F.I.R. the caste is given as Boudha. It is well-known fact that all those who were professing Hindu religion and belonged to Mahar caste have embrassed Budhism. Although they have so adopted Boudha religion, the Society it seems unfortunately, still considers them as Mahar i.e. untouchable. It is for this reason that the Government had to issue a Government Resolution whereby the erstwhile Mahars, who adopted any other religion were still considered to be as belonging to Mahar caste recognized as one of the Scheduled Castes. On 29th July, 1974, The Social Welfare Department, in Government of Maharashtra issued the following Government Resolution - CIRCULAR . Under Government Circular, Education and Social Welfare No.CBC 1462-M, dated 1.10.1962, the Hon.Magistrates in Mofussil areas and the Justice of Peace in Greater Bombay were held competent to issue Caste Certificates to the members of the Backward/Classes. The institution of J.Ps. in Greater Bombay and the Hon.Magistrates in the Districts stood terminated with effect from 1st April, 1974 after the revised Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, came into force on that date. Government has since reconsidered the matter and appointed the former justices of Peace in Greater Bombay and the Hon.Magistrates in the Districts as Special Executive Magistrates under Section 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to mitigate the hardships caused to the public in general and students community in particular in the matter of issue of certificate etc. Government is, therefore, pleased to nominate the Special Executive Magistrates appointed under Section 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to be the additional authorities competent to issue caste certificate to the Backward Classes in the Maharashtra State. All concessions available to the Scheduled Castes, except statutory concession and certain special schemes for the removal of untouchability, have been extended to the Nav Budhas i.e. Scheduled Castes converted to Buddhism. The Special Executive Magistrates should therefore issue caste certificate to the Nav Budhas also. By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra.. 5. Obviously, therefore, all Navboudha are still recognized as persons belonging to Scheduled Castes. Therefore, when a person gives out or writes his caste as Navboudha, it must be assumed that he belongs to Scheduled Castes. In this particular case, the complainant gives out his caste as Navboudha. By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra.. 5. Obviously, therefore, all Navboudha are still recognized as persons belonging to Scheduled Castes. Therefore, when a person gives out or writes his caste as Navboudha, it must be assumed that he belongs to Scheduled Castes. In this particular case, the complainant gives out his caste as Navboudha. With the above Circular of Government, it has to be said that the complainant did disclose his caste as belonging to Scheduled Castes. The contents of the complaint do show that the complainant was abused on the basis of his caste. Shri Mirza, the learned counsel, relied on a decision of this court in 2005 of ALL M.R.(Criminal) 2602 (Manohar Kulkarni .vs. State of Maharashtra). This court has made following observations. . 13. In the circumstances, it is held that the registration of the crime by the Police in all the aforesaid matters under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1958 (where applied and only where the case of the complainant is not given in the body of the F.I.R.) and the consequent investigation and prosecution for the offences under the Atrocities Act or the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (where applied and where the caste of the complainant is not given in the body of the F.I.R.) was not in accordance with the land and is liable to be quashed and set aside.. 6. In the case at hand, not only the caste is given at the beginning of the complaint but in the body of the complaint that when the accused called the complainant as Mahardya, Dhedagya, he knew the caste of the complainant and wanted to insult him on the basis of it. I do not, therefore, find any force in the contention that the F.I.R. does not disclose an offence under Section 3 of the Atrocities Act. 7. Shri Mirza then contended that the complainants have falsely implicated the applicants in this criminal case, in as much as, the complainant was assaulted by others and not by the present applicants. My attention was invited to two other F.I.Rs. lodged on the same day around same time. F.I.R.No.84 of 2006 was lodged by one Arun Pargarmor against Sadanand Poharkar, the complainant in F.I.R.No.86/06, his brother and few others. My attention was invited to two other F.I.Rs. lodged on the same day around same time. F.I.R.No.84 of 2006 was lodged by one Arun Pargarmor against Sadanand Poharkar, the complainant in F.I.R.No.86/06, his brother and few others. It is alleged that Sadanand Poharkar and others allegedly beat Arun Pargarmor and others on their way to the S.T.stand. It is also alleged that when Ravindra Poharkar tried to assault Arun Pargarmor, the blow of the weapon fell on Sadanand Poharkar. It is submitted that these allegations of Arun Pargarmor in F.I.R.No.84/06 would disprove the allegations of Sadanand Poharkar in F.I.R.No.83/2006 that Sudhir Chatare assaulted him with a weapon. The submission has no force. The court cannot at this stage go into proof or disproof and veracity of the contents of all the three F.I.Rs. What the court is required to look into is whether the contents of the F.I.R. are intelligible and disclose a cognizable offence. If all F.I.Rs. i.e. 83 to 85 of 2006 make out the ingredients of the offences, then it may be that there may have been fight amongst all. Who is the assailant or otherwise need not be gone into at this stage. Prima facie, all these F.I.Rs. do disclose commission of cognizable offences. The case does not fall in any of the broad categories as defined by the Supreme Court. I would, therefore, dismiss the applications. Rule stands discharged.