Abhay and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

criminal procedure code, 1973 - section 482--quashing of f.i.r.--plea of accused-petitioners to quash the f.i.r. for offences under sections 323, 336 and 341 i.p.c. and 3(1)(x) of s.c.s.t. act--but f.i.r. and record reveals that there is a prima-facie case against accused-petitioners--however police authorities directed not to arrest the accused petitioner no. 3 being woman for offence under section 3(1)(x) of s.c.s.t. act during investigation.;misc. petition disposed of - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 3. heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned public prosecutor and perused the fir as well as judgment referred before me. 4. having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned public prosecutor. i do not find any good reason for quashing the fir no......section 3(1)(x) of schedule caste and schedule tribes (prevention of atrocities act, 1989.2. the main content on the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the definition of section 3(1)(x) of the sc and st (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989, offence under section 3(1)(x) cannot be said to be committed by the accused-petitioners and if the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the aforesaid act is not made out against the petitioners, the rest of the offences under section 323, 341 and 336 ipc are bailable offences. in support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment (sheosahai sharma v. state of rajasthan) (1), and requested that the aforesaid fir should be quashed and set aside on this count alone.3. heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned public prosecutor and perused the fir as well as judgment referred before me. the judgment referred before me is not applicable to the instant case. it is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that there are cross cases between the parties and no case is made out against the accused- petitioners for which the fir no. 313/2001 registered at police station mundawar, district alwar deserves to be quashed and set aside.4. having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned public prosecutor. i do not find any good reason for quashing the fir no. 313/2001. the misc. petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed.5. after passing of this order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he do not want to press the quashment of fir and only wants to direction to the police not to arrest the accused-petitioner no. 3 being a woman for offence under section 3(1)(a) of the sc and st (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 till the finalisation of investigation.6. i deem it proper to direct the police not to arrest the accused-petitioner no. 3 during investigation for offence under section 3(1)(x) of the sc/st (prevention of.....