apl.913.2023.Judgment.odt (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.913 OF 2023 Roshan s/o Himmatrao Pudke, Aged about 33 Years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Dhusala, Post Kandri, Tahsil Mohadi, District Bhandara. .... APPLICANT // VERSUS // 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Tumsar, Bhandara. 2. State of Maharashtra , Through Station Incharge Andhalgaon Police Station, Tahsil Tumsar, District Bhandara. 3. Karu Dhanu Gajbhiye, R/o. Dhusala, Tahsil Mohadi, District Bhandara. .... NON-APPLICANTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. Mugdha Chandurkar, Counsel for the applicant. Mr. Nikhil Joshi, APP for non-applicant Nos.1 and 2/State. Mr. Shyam Jaiswal, appointed Counsel for non-applicant No.3. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 01.10.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 15.10.2025 JUDGMENT : (PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) 1. Admit. 2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel of the parties. 2025:BHC-NAG:10950-DB apl.913.2023.Judgment.odt (2) 3. Present application is preferred by the applicant for quashing of the First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) in connection with Crime No.49/2023 registered with Police Station Andhalgaon District Bhandara, for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘the Act of 1989’) along with Sections 143 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing Sessions Trial No.48/2023 pending before the 3rd District and Additional Sessions Judge, and Special Judge, Bhandara. 4. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by the informant non-applicant No.2 Karu Dhanu Gajbhiye on an allegation that there is a previous enmity between him and one Bhagwan Bhaiyaji Singanjude, who has lodged the false report against his son Amol. On 29.03.2023 at about 11.30 a.m., he had been to the Society for depositing some amount and was returning back, at the relevant time, he halted at the Tea-Stall of Rajesh Pudke. The present applicant along with the other co-accused, came there and abused him on his caste by saying, ßgkp gks dkÚ;k ekgÚ;k /ksM;k vkeP;k ukokph fjiksVZ ns.kkjk ;kyk lkY;kyk ekjk ;kps dqVaqckyk laiok gs nksu fru ?kjkps egkj dk; djrhy gk dqBsgh fnlsy ;kykgh ekjk ;kps eqykykgh ekjk vkeps dk; gks.kkj vkgsÞ and thereby apl.913.2023.Judgment.odt (3) humiliated and insulted him. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicant. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, who submitted that general and omnibus allegation is levelled against the present applicant. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the various statements of the witnesses. No prima facie case is made out against the present applicant and therefore, the FIR lodged against him deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that there are specific abuses given to the informant on his caste only with an intent to humiliate and insult him. As far as the statements of the witnesses are concerned, which are recorded which attract a prima facie case against the present applicant and therefore, the application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned appointed Counsel for the informant Mr. Shyam Jaiswal also reiterated the said contentions and submitted that the statement of the witnesses discloses the involvement of the present applicant and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. apl.913.2023.Judgment.odt (4) 8. On hearing both sides and on going through the investigation papers from which it reveals that as far as the recitals of the FIR are concerned, general and omnibus allegation is levelled against the applicant. During the investigation, the statement of the Tea-Stall owner was also recorded, which shows that no such incident of abusing on the caste has taken place. The statement of other independent witnesses also not supports the contentions that there was any incident as to the abuses, as to the caste is concerned. In view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the principles/guidelines while considering the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. apl.913.2023.Judgment.odt (5) (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” apl.913.2023.Judgment.odt (6) 9. In the light of the above principles, if the facts of the present case are taken into consideration, and even accepting the allegations as it is, except the reference of the caste, no other material is collected during the investigation to show that with an intention to humiliate the caste was referred by the present accused. Moreover, there is an omnibus and general allegation against all the accused, including the present applicant. 10. The basic ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are: (a) Accused person must not be a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; (b) Accused must intentionally insult or intimidate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; (c) Accused must do so with the intent to humiliate such a person; and (d) Accused must do so at any place within public view. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shajan Skaria Vs. The State of Kerala and another in Criminal Appeal No.2622/2024 decided on 23.08.2024, in para No.58 observed that “all insults or intimidations to a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe will not amount to an apl.913.2023.Judgment.odt (7) offence under the Act, 1989 unless such insult or intimidation is on the ground that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.” By referring the earlier decision in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710, the Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is not established merely on the fact that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, unless there is an intention to humiliate such a member for the reason that he belongs to such community. In other words, it is not the purport of the Act, 1989 that every act of intentional insult or intimidation meted by a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 merely because it is committed against a person who happens to be a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. On the contrary, Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is attracted where the reason for the intentional insult or intimidation is that the person who is subjected to it belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 12. While interpreting the meaning of the expression “intent to humiliate” the Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that “The words “with intent to humiliate” as they appear in the text of Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are inextricably linked to apl.913.2023.Judgment.odt (8) the caste identity of the person who is subjected to intentional insult or intimidation. Not every intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a SC/ST community will result into a feeling of caste-based humiliation. It is only in those cases where the intentional insult or intimidation takes place either due to the prevailing practice of untouchability or to reinforce the historically entrenched ideas like the superiority of the “upper castes” over the “lower castes/untouchables”, the notions of ‘purity’ and ‘pollution’, etc. that it could be said to be an insult or intimidation of the type envisaged by the Act, 1989.” 13. Having regard to the above said principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and considering the facts of the present case, there is nothing to even prima facie indicate that the applicant has uttered such words with intent to humiliate or insult the informant. In fact, mere knowledge of the fact that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. The recitals of the FIR only shows that there is a reference of the caste and that is also the allegation is omnibus in nature. There is no specific allegation levelled against the present applicant. As far as Section 143 of IPC is concerned, except the bare statement of the informant that the applicant was a member of an unlawful assembly and the ingredients of Section 506 of IPC apl.913.2023.Judgment.odt (9) are also not made out. In view of that, the applicant has made out a case for quashing of the FIR in connection with Crime No.49/2023 and consequent arising out of the same. In view of that, we proceed to pass following order: ORDER (i) The application is allowed. (ii) The First Information Report in connection with Crime No.49/2023 registered with Police Station Andhalgaon, District Bhandara, for the offence punishable under Sections 143 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and consequent proceeding arising out of the same Sessions Trial No.48/2023 pending before the 3rd District and Additional Sessions Judge, and Special Judge, Bhandara, are hereby quashed and set aside. 14. The fees of the appointed Counsel be quantified as per rules. 15. The application is disposed of in the above said terms. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J) Sarkate.