JUDGMENT:- The present application is filed for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R., dated 27 -5-1999 and the further investigation in crime No.62/1999 registered with Police Station Jamkhed, Dist. Ahamednagar against the applicants. 2. Background facts of the case are as under:- It is the case of the applicants that applicants are the servants of Maharashtra State Electricity Board. By a circular dated 11-51999, which was issued by the Chief Engineer (C), M.S.E.B. to all the stations of M.S.E.B. in Maharashtra, it was directed to recover the arrests of the electricity charges from the defaulter consumers and directed ail the officers to collect the arrears and in case, no arrears are paid, the electric connection of those consumers be discontinued. 3. It is the case of the applicants that again on 19-5-1999 a message was addressed to all the Assistant Engineers to take special efforts to recover the electricity charges and if not paid by the respective consumers, the electricity supply of the defaulters should be discontinued. 4. It is further case of the applicants that as a routine work, the applicant No.7 alongwith staff members i.e. applicant Nos.1 to 6 went to various places to collect the arrears from the defaulters and in case of non-payment, to disconnect the electricity connections of the said defaulter consumers. 5. It is further case of the applicants that on 25-5-1999 at about 8.00 p.m. in the night, after the day's work completed, the applicants came back to the Sub Station, Jamkhed. After coming to the sub station, applicant No.7 alongwith staff members, went to the Control Room to ascertain the condition of electricity and to submit the report of the day. When the applicant No.7 came out, two persons namely Rahul Madhukar Sadaphule and Sunil Madhukar Sadaphule and one unknown person obstructed the applicant No.7 from boarding the vehicle and started questioning him about the electricity supply to their lands. Therefore, to applicant No.7 informed those persons to pay the arrears of electricity charges and then only the electricity connection will be reserved/continued. 6. It is further case of the applicants that there was some hot discussions and applicant No.7 tried to specify those three persons, but they started beating the applicant 7. At about 22.45 hours the applicants lodged F.I.R. in Police Station Jamkhed which was numbered as F.I.R. No. 10061/99. 8. 6. It is further case of the applicants that there was some hot discussions and applicant No.7 tried to specify those three persons, but they started beating the applicant 7. At about 22.45 hours the applicants lodged F.I.R. in Police Station Jamkhed which was numbered as F.I.R. No. 10061/99. 8. It is further case of the applicants that when the investigation of the complaint lodged by the applicant No.7 was in progress, respondent No.2 on 27-5-1999 filed a false complaint u/s.7(1)(3) and 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity). 9. In the present application, said F.I.R. dated 27-5-1999 is sought to be quashed. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicant No.7 is no more, therefore, so far applicant No.7 is concerned, there is no question of prosecution the present application on behalf of him. She invited my attention to the F.I.R., dated 27 -51999 and submitted that though the F.I.R. is lodged under section 7(1)(3) and 3(1)(10) of the Act, the contents of the said F.I.R. does not attract the offence under above provisions. She further submits that complainant has made specific allegation so far applicant No.7 is concerned, that Mr. Sonpethkar uttered the words to the complainant that, "Mahardya, I know you, I know your status, what you want to say, you come to my office and say whatever you want to say." The learned counsel further submits that so far applicant Nos.1 to 6 are concerned, only allegation against them is that they were accompanying the applicant No.7 Shri. Sonpethkar. The sum and substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that even the contents of the F.I.R. are taken as it is, no offence under the provisions of the Act is attracted in the present case for the two reasons, firstly it is not stated in the said F.I.R. that the present respondents are not from S.C. or S.T. community and secondly, so far applicant Nos.1 to 6 are concerned, no any words have been uttered by them abusing the complainant on his caste and therefore, no offence is made out under the provisions of section 7(1)(3) and 3(1)(10) of the Act. She further submits that, since the applicant No.7 is no more, the complainant has only made specific allegations against the applicant No.7 only. Therefore, she submits that contention of the investigation in the said crime would be abuse of process of law, therefore, the said F.I.R. deserves to be quashed. 11. The learned A.P.P. submits that the applicants are named in the F.I.R. However, the learned A.P.P. fairly conceded that no more specific allegations are made against the present applicant Nos.1 to 6. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P., I am of the considered view that even the contents of the F.I.R. are taken as it is, no offence is made out under sections 7(1)(3) and 3(1)(10) of the Act. In my considered view, any further investigation in pursuant to the F.I.R. No.62/ 99 would be abuse of process of law. Moreover, the applicants, who are the employees of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, were discharging their duties and therefore, in my considered view, when no specific allegations are made against them that they have abused the complainant, saying something about the caste of complainant, the F.I.R. is required to be quashed. 13. In the result, the application succeeds. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause C of the application and disposed off Application allowed.