Cow Shed Is Not "Place Within Public View": Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Under SC-ST Act

The High Court was considering a petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking the relief of quashing and setting aside the FIR registered under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act and Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajesh S. Patil & Justice A.S. Gadkari held, “As per the contents of F.I.R., the allegations of abusing the Respondent No.2 on his caste were within the four walls of his cow shade and therefore in view of the decision in the case of Swaran Singh and Others Vs. State Through Standing Counsel and Anr (supra), it cannot be said to be a place within the public view, as none of the said witness present at the scene of offence, was an independent witness.”

Senior Advocate Rajiv Chavan represented the Petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor Vinod Chate represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case as set up by the prosecution was that the second Respondent belongs to the Hindu religion and the Katkari Caste. There was a water hand pump next to a road adjacent to his village, which was used by the women of the village. The Petitioner had compounded the area where the Respondent had usage of the footway. The Petitioner put a compound of wires three months before the date of the lodgment of the crime, which blocked the Respondent’s road leading to the said hand pump. A meeting of villagers was also convened. One day, when the Respondent was tethering the cattle in his cattle shed, the Petitioner came there and started bickering with him in a loud voice in the Marathi language.

It was alleged that the Respondent’s wife, daughter and other relatives were present. It was alleged that the Petitioner abused the Respondent on his caste. The Petitioner, thereafter, constructed a compound on the said land and blocked the road to the pump. It was in such circumstances that the case came to be registered.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that there was a delay of about 30 days in lodging the crime, which was not explained by the Respondent. It appeared from the record that the Respondent was a semiliterate person, and the alleged incident of abusing the Respondent on his caste took place in his cow shed.

On the allegations that the respondent’s family members were present at the place of the incident, the Bench stated, “At that place all the family members and the said Kaluram Pawar were present. The witnesses are either close relatives of the Respondent No.2 or friend or interested persons only, and there was no independent witness present thereof. The said incident did not take place either in the ‘public view’ or at a ‘public place’.”

The Bench also made a reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Swaran Singh and Others Vs. State Through Standing Counsel and Anr (2008), wherein it has been held that abuses on the caste should be in the presence of independent witnesses. The independent persons may not be those persons who are close relatives or friends of the complainant.

Reference was also made to the judgment in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992), wherein the Apex Court has held that powers under Section 482 of the Indian Penal Code can be exercised 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 a private and personal grudge.

Thus, the Bench concluded the matter by quashing the FIR.

Cause Title: Shailendra Bankebihari Singh v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:12132-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Rajiv Chavan, Advocates Rashmi Tiwari, Asmi Desai, Sonam Pandey, Bhairavi Waravdekar

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Vinod Chate

Click here to read/download Order