.....from proceeding in any direction in which he has a right to proceed. the wrong being a wrong against the person is not completed where the person is at liberty to go in any direction he pleases. - section 3: [s.b. mhase, d.s. bhosale & a.s. oka, jj] offences of atrocities - complaint under held, merely because the caste of the accused is not mentioned in the fir stating whether he belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, it cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint. after ascertaining the facts during he course of investigation it is always open to the investigating officer to record tht the accused either belongs to or does not belongs to schedule caste or scheduled tribe. after final opinion is formed, it is open to the court to either accept the same or take cognizance. even if the charge sheet is filed at the time of consideration of the charge, it si open to the accused to bring to the notice of the court that the materials do not show that the accused does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. even if charge is framed at the time of trial materials can be placed to show that the accused either belongs to or does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. even if charge is frame d at the time of trial materials can be placed to show that the accused either belongs to or does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. it is not a requirement und4r section 3 of the atrocities act that the complainant should disclose the caste of the accused in the complaint. in other words, if there is no mention of the caste of the accused in the fir, that cannot be a ground for either not registering the offence under section 3 of the act or for quashing such complaintbatchelor, j.1. in this case the accused has been convicted of wrongful restraint under section 339, indian penal code, and sentenced to a fine. on appeal to the additional district magistrate, mr. sedgwick, the conviction was upheld. the learned district magistrate, however, finds as a fact that the person said to have been obstructed was still able to proceed across the passage in question. that being so, we do not think that he can be said to have been wrongfully restrained, seeing that the definition under section 339 requires that the obstruction should be so complete and successful as to prevent the person obstructed from proceeding in any direction in which he has a right to proceed. the wrong here defined is a wrong against the person, and is not completed where the person is at liberty to go in any direction he pleases. that is the case here (sic) facts found by the magistrate, and it appears to the (sic) material that the person, though himself unobstructed, (sic) hindered from driving a bullock-cart through the passage. w(sic) must, therefore, make the rule absolute, set aside the conv(sic)tion and sentence and direct that the fine, if paid, be refun(sic) to the accused.