Mere Insult Or Intimidation With A View To Humiliate Or Hurling Abuses In Name Of Caste Won’t Constitute Offence Under SC/ST Act: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court was deciding a Criminal Application filed by nine accused persons, seeking quashing of the case against them.
The Bombay High Court held that, mere insult or intimidation with a view to humiliate or hurling abuses in the name of caste will not constitute an offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (SC/ST Act).
The Aurangabad Bench held thus in a Criminal Application filed by nine accused persons in an FIR registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2) (n), 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Rohit W. Joshi observed, “Section 3(1)(r) is attracted when a member of scheduled caste is intentionally insulted or intimidated with an intention to humiliate him/her in any place within ‘public view’. Likewise Section 3(1)(s) is attracted when a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is abused by the name of caste in any place within a ‘ public view’. Perusal of the said provisions would indicate that mere insult or intimidation with a view to humiliate or hurling abuses in the name of caste will not constitute an offence under the said provisions.”
The Bench further clarified that the offence under the SC/ST Act’s provisions will be made out only if such act of insult or intimidation with a view to humiliate and/ or abuse in the name of caste is in public view.
“It will be pertinent to mention here that the incident need not be in a public place. It has to be in public view”, it added.
Advocates Rohit Patwardhan and Satej Jadhav represented the Applicants while APP A.D. Wange and Advocate Harshal P. Randhir represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The principal accused in this case was the one against whom allegations in relation to Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) of IPC were levelled. The other Applicants were relatives of the principal accused and the allegations against them pertained to Sections 323, 504, and 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s), and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. The Respondent i.e., the informant alleged that she was running a garment shop which was taken on rent from the Applicant No. 7 and the adjoining shop was run by the principal accused. She claimed that over a period of time, she developed a relationship and bonding with the principal accused who had promised to marry her and upon such promise, had allegedly established physical relations with her and had repeated encounters of sexual intercourse with her, although she opposed the same.
The informant further claimed that she had converted to Muslim religion in order to marry him but allegedly, the said accused got engaged with another lady and was about to marry her. This led to discord between them. She also claimed that the accused’s mother had hurled abuses in the name of her caste stating that because of her caste background, she was not worthy or suitable to marry her son. It was alleged that the accused’s other family members and relatives also abused her and beaten her inflicting fist blows and kicks. Resultantly, the FIR was lodged and the same was lodged after some delay which allegedly happened because of the death threat given to the informant by the accused persons. Hence, the accused persons approached the High Court, seeking quashing of the case against them.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “This allegation of sexist remarks does not find place in the First Information Report. There appears to be marked improvement in the allegations made in the supplementary statement. … Prima facie, the presence of accused Nos. 1 to 4 at the spot of the incident at the alleged time of the offence cannot be ruled out at this stage in the light of allegations made in the First Information Report which is supported by their CDRs.”
The Court said that the incident might have occurred in a public place, however, there is no material to indicate that it occurred in public view and it is not even alleged by the informant in FIR or supplementary statement that the incident occurred in public view.
“… we are of the view that offence under Section 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act is not made out. … Although the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC are non cognizable offences, the offences under Sections 323 and 506 IPC when committed by members not belonging either to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe against a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe becomes a cognizable offence under Section 3(2)(va)”, it further remarked.
The Court also noted that there are clear and consistent allegations against the Applicant Nos. 1 to 4 that they had beaten and caused simple hurt to the informant during the course of the alleged incident and therefore, the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act cannot be quashed against them.
“One of the issues that falls for consideration is as to whether criminal prosecution can be quashed only in part i.e. with respect to provisions which are not attracted and be maintained with respect to provisions that are attracted. This question is no longer res interga and has been fully answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ishwar Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2018) 13 SCC 612] that a criminal prosecution can be quashed in part with respect to provisions which are not attracted”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the case to the extent of offences under SC/ST Act against the accused persons and maintained the prosecution with respect to other offences.
Cause Title- Afshamaskar Laikhkan Pathan & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:1021-DB)
