Bombay High Court Quashes SC/ST Act FIR In Anticipatory Bail Appeal
The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR while considering the appeals filed by the accused challenging the order rejecting their anticipatory bail applications.
While considering the criminal appeals filed against the rejection of the anticipatory bail applications, the Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The High Court referred to a ruling of the Allahabad High Court wherein it was held that the offence under the SC/ST Act may be compounded in a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) and there is no need to take recourse to Section 482 of the CrPC.
The High Court was considering the appeals filed by the appellants/accused challenging the order rejecting their anticipatory bail applications in a case registered under sections 351(2), (352, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and under sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Referring to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Rahul Gupta & Others v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2024), the Bench of Justice Y. G. Khobragade held, “The learned Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court also considered the Full Bench Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in case of Ghulam Rasool Khan and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2022 DGLS (Alld.) 1005, wherein, it has been held that offence under the SC/ST Act may be compounded in a Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act and there is no need to take recourse of section 482 of the C.R.P.C.”
Factual Background
The Court had earlier passed an interim order and released both the appellants accused on anticipatory bail on furnishing a PR Bond of Rs 25,000 each. On July 7, 2025, the Respondent informant appeared before the Trial Court and submitted that she had decided to give up the dispute as she got married and had no objection to enlarge the accused on bail. By an order, the Respondent victim as well as the appellants were directed to remain personally present before the Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the affidavit executed by the informant, the Bench noted that the appellants/accused in both the appeals had amicably settled the dispute in connection with the case registered under Sections 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and under sections 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thus, they did not want to pursue the said complaint any further, and the informant had no objection to releasing the appellants/accused on bail.
Considering that the appellants/accused and the respondent informant had amicably settled the dispute and compounded the offence in connection with the criminal case, the Bench found it just and proper to quash and set aside the FIR registered against the appellants/ accused with Shirdi Police Station as well the FIR registered against the informant and her relatives with for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 333, 115 (2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Taking note of the fact that the parties had invoked the police machinery as well as the court machinery, and after registration of the crime, entered into a compromise, the Bench directed the appellants–accused to jointly deposit costs of Rs 20,000 (Rs 10,000 each), before the Court, to be paid to the informant respondent. The Bench thus allowed the criminal appeals.
Cause Title: Anuradha Alias Hirabai Arun Gondkar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:5394)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocate Kulkarni Rashmi S.
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor P. K. Kulkarni, Advocate Ashwini A. Lomte