JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for Respondent No.1 Nobody appears for respondent No.2. 2. This Court has issued notice for final disposal on 16/6/2006 and admitted the matter for final hearing on 27/2/2007. At that time further prosecution in CR No.24/2006 has been stayed. Ad-interim order continues to operate even today. 3. After hearing the respective counsel we find that in relation to incident dated 7/3/2006 and 8/4/2006 the report was lodged by respondent No.2. On the basis of this report respondent No.1 has registered FIR on 28/4/2006. 4. In the entire report dated 28/4/2006 respondent No.2 nowhere mentions any caste or tribe. The word in vernacular mentioned by the petitioner is “bhamtya” which means that the petitioner addressed him as deceiver or cheater. It appears that thereafter on the next date the Respondent No.2 had given additional statement and in it he has substituted the word “bhamtya” by word “mangtya”. It is not in dispute that word “mangtya” refers to scheduled caste. 5. However the derogatory mode and manner in which said utterance is employed is insult to caste of respondent No.2. However, immediately thereafter Respondent No.2 has sworn the affidavit and disclosed that statement made by him in the supplementary statement to police pointing out abuse in the name of caste was not correct. It appears that therefore respondent No.2 himself has withdrawn his supplementary statement. 6. It is therefore clear that though served, he has chosen not to appear in the matter. 7. In the situation we make rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). No costs.