JUDGMENT : Vasanti A. Naik, J. Admit. Heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this criminal application, the applicants seek the quashing and setting aside of FIR No. M19/2017 registered against the applicants for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 294, 427, 452, 506 and 307 of the Penal Code, Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. 3. The applicants are agriculturists and the non-applicant no. 2 is the possessor of the adjoining agriculture field. It is the case of the applicants that a false complaint was lodged by the non-applicant no. 2 with the non-applicant no. 1 that the applicants had entered into her agriculture field and house and had threatened to kill her and had abused her in the name of her caste. Since the non-applicant no. 1 did not take cognizance of the matter after recording the statements of the adjoining neighbours, the non-applicant no. 2 filed an application before the learned Magistrate for a direction to the non-applicant no. 1 under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By an order dated 19-1-2017, the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola directed the non-applicant no. 1 to register the offences against the applicants under the aforesaid provisions. According to the applicants, the said order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was illegal as a direction could not have been issued for the registration of the FIR. The said order was challenged by the applicants in a criminal revision application before this Court. However, in the meanwhile, since the chargesheet was filed, this Court permitted the applicants to withdraw the criminal revision application. However, this Court noted while issuing notice to the respondents that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola was without jurisdiction. After the criminal revision application was withdrawn, this criminal application is filed by the applicants for quashing and setting aside the FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom. 4. Shri Anil Mardikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the non-applicant no. 1 could not have registered the FIR against the applicants on the report lodged by the non-applicant no. 2 before the non-applicant no. 1 on 20-10-2016, as an enquiry was made by the non-applicant no. 4. Shri Anil Mardikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the non-applicant no. 1 could not have registered the FIR against the applicants on the report lodged by the non-applicant no. 2 before the non-applicant no. 1 on 20-10-2016, as an enquiry was made by the non-applicant no. 1 on the complaint of the non-applicant no. 2 and from the statements of the neighbours, it was noticed that no offence could be registered against the applicants. It is stated that the adjoining neighbours who had witnessed the incident dated 20-10-2016 clearly mentioned in their statements that were recorded by the non-applicant no. 1 that there was merely some dispute between the applicants and the non-applicant no. 2 pertaining to the land but the applicants had not abused the non-applicant no. 2 on the basis of her caste and they had not come to the field of the non-applicant no. 2 with weapons. It is stated that it is apparent from the statements recorded by the non-applicant no. 1 that the complaint lodged by the non-applicant no. 2 was false and the non-applicant no. 1 had, therefore, rightly not taken any action against the applicants on the basis of the same. It is submitted that on the basis of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola dated 19-1-2017 directing the non-applicant no. 1 to register the FIR against the applicants, the FIR is mechanically registered. It is stated that in the original report filed by the non-applicant no. 2, it is not alleged that the applicants had abused the non-applicant no. 2 on the basis of her caste, in a particular manner. It is stated that there is a vast difference between the original report dated 20-10-2016 and the second report, which is the application filed by the non-applicant no. 2 for a direction under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is stated that the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) were not made in the original report dated 20-10-2016. It is stated that earlier also, a similar report was lodged by the non-applicant no. 2 against the applicants in respect of the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the said matter was compromised between the applicants and the non-applicant no. 2. It is stated that earlier also, a similar report was lodged by the non-applicant no. 2 against the applicants in respect of the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the said matter was compromised between the applicants and the non-applicant no. 2. It is stated that according to the statements of the neighbours, that were recorded in November, 2016 it is clear that the dispute between the parties is pertaining to the land and is of a civil nature. It is stated that since on the basis of the first report lodged by the non-applicant no. 2, dated 20-10-2016 and the statements recorded by the non-applicant no. 1, prima facie, no offence could be made out against the applicants under the provisions of Sections 147, 148, 294, 427, 452, 506 and 307 of the Penal Code and Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, the FIR is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. Shri Doifode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the non-applicant no. 1 fairly admitted that in the first report lodged by the non-applicant no. 2 with the non-applicant no. 1 on 20-10-2016, the allegations that are found in the second report lodged by the non-applicant no. 2, are not present. It is stated that on the basis of the first report lodged by the non-applicant no. 2 dated 20-10-2016, the statements of the adjoining neighbours were recorded and all the neighbours except one stated that the incident, as alleged by the non-applicant did not occur on 20-10-2016. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced the record for the perusal of the Court. We have perused the statements of the neighbours. Almost all the neighbours have stated that on 20-10-2016, there was some verbal dual between the applicants and the non-applicant no. 2 and the dispute between the applicants and the non-applicant no. 2 pertains to the landed property. It is stated that it was stated by the neighbours in their statements that the applicants did not abuse the non-applicant no. 2 on the basis of her caste and also did not bring weapons along with them to the field or the house of the non-applicant no. 2. It is stated that on a consideration of the statements and the other enquiry made by the non-applicant no. 2 on the basis of her caste and also did not bring weapons along with them to the field or the house of the non-applicant no. 2. It is stated that on a consideration of the statements and the other enquiry made by the non-applicant no. 1, no offence was registered against the applicants. It is stated that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, however, directed the non-applicant no. 1 to register the offence against the applicants under the provision of the Sections 147, 148, 294, 427, 452, 506 and 307 of the Penal Code and Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. It is stated that by following the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, the FIR was registered against the applicants. It is fairly admitted that in the first report lodged by the non-applicant no. 2, the allegations that are made in the second report lodged by the non-applicant no. 2 are not present. 6. Shri Rahul Dhande, the learned counsel for the non-applicant no. 2 submitted that the FIR was rightly registered by the non-applicant no. 1 on the basis of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola dated 19-1-2017. It is stated that since the non-applicant no. 1 was not registering the crime against the applicants, the non-applicant no. 2 was required to file an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that the non-applicant no. 2 was residing in the house in the field with her children and since the applicants had abused her in the name of her caste and had also caused grievous hurt to her by weapons, the non-applicant had rightly registered the offences against the applicants. 7. We have perused the papers pertaining to the investigation of the complaint. It is conspicuous to note that in the first report lodged by the non-applicant no. 2 with the non-applicant no. 1, there was no specific allegation in regard to the abuse of the non-applicant no. 2 in the name of her caste. It is only stated in the first report lodged by the non-applicant no. 2 on 20-10-2016 that without any rhyme or reason, the applicants used to abuse the non-applicant no. 2 and harass her. 1, there was no specific allegation in regard to the abuse of the non-applicant no. 2 in the name of her caste. It is only stated in the first report lodged by the non-applicant no. 2 on 20-10-2016 that without any rhyme or reason, the applicants used to abuse the non-applicant no. 2 and harass her. It is stated in the first report that while leaving the field and her house on 20-10-2016, the applicants had threatened her that they would set her house on fire and demolish the house within two months. The non-applicant no. 2 had sought action against the applicants on the basis of said complaint. We have perused the statements of adjoining neighbours. All the adjoining neighbours except one, had stated that the applicants had not threatened the non-applicant no. 2 or brought the weapons to the field of the non-applicant no. 2 and that they had not abused her in the name of her caste. It is only mentioned in the statements that there was a dispute between the applicants and the non-applicant no. 2 in respect of the field and the non-applicant no. 2 was in the habit of making complaints against the applicants. It appears that on the basis of the enquiry in the matter of the complaint lodged by the non-applicant no. 2 on 20-10-2016, no action was taken by the non-applicant no. 1 after finding that there was no truth in the report lodged by the non-applicant no. 2. However, on the basis of the directions issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in the order dated 19-1-2017, the non-applicant no. 1 registered the offences against the applicants under the various provisions of the Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act by once again recording the statements of the neighbours. In our view, the Additional Sessions Judge could not have directed the non-applicant no. 1 to register the FIR against the applicants without investigating the complaint made by the non-applicant no. 2. The Additional Sessions Judge, Akola ought to have directed the non-applicant no. 1 to investigate in the complaint lodged by the non-applicant no. 2 if he was of the view that a case was made out by the non-applicant no. 2 for further investigation in the matter. 2. The Additional Sessions Judge, Akola ought to have directed the non-applicant no. 1 to investigate in the complaint lodged by the non-applicant no. 2 if he was of the view that a case was made out by the non-applicant no. 2 for further investigation in the matter. We find that in view of the specific direction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola to register the FIR, the non-applicant no. 1 has mechanically registered the FIR against the applicants though from the statements that were initially recorded by the non-applicant no. 1 in the month of November, 2016, the FIR could not have been registered against the applicants. We find that on an earlier occasion also, the non-applicant no. 2 had filed a complaint against the applicants and the FIR was registered against them but the matter was compromised between the applicants and the non-applicant no. 2. On the basis of the first report filed by the non-applicant no. 2 dated 20-10-2016 and the statements of the adjoining neighbours that had witnessed the incident dated 20-10-2016, prima facie, the offences cannot be made out against the applicants under the provisions of Sections 147, 148, 294, 427, 452, 506 and 307 of the Penal Code, Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. A clear case for quashing of the FIR has been made out by the applicants. 8. Hence, by applying the principles as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, the FIR is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the criminal application is allowed. The FIR registered against the applicants, bearing No. M19/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 294, 427, 452, 506 and 307 of the Penal Code, Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and set aside. Order accordingly.