The Bombay High Court has quashed a case filed against a man under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly making adverse remarks about Dr. BR Ambedkar on phone noting that the conversation was selectively picked.

The Court was considering a Criminal Application filed seeking quashing of an FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 298, 505, 505(2), 506, 507 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(u), (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The division-bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh observed, "All these posts of informant were provocative, which can be certainly said to be with an intention to affect sentiments of that community and, therefore, certainly, when there was a reaction to his provocative posts, thereby he had instigated or invited the comments, he cannot now say that it amounts to an offence. In First Information Report informant has only chosen those words which were according to him, amounted to offence, thereby eliminating other conversation is rather pick and choose method, which cannot be allowed to sustain."

The Applicant was represented by Advocate S.S. Varma while the Respondent was represented by Advocate S.A. Gaikwad.

Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the offence was initially not registered under the Atrocities Act and later on during the course of investigation a supplementary statement of informant has been recorded, wherein he has stated that as he had no caste certificate at the time of lodging of First Information Report, he had mentioned as ‘Navbauddha’, but, now, he has certificate issued by Sub Divisional Officer, Collector Office, Aurangabad, which shows that he is a member of a Scheduled Caste and, therefore, he has produced it. Thereupon, sections from the Atrocities Act were added. Thus, there is total suppression of facts when the First Information Report was lodged. There was no question of addition of sections under the Atrocities Act after the registration of First Information Report.

He pointed out that the prosecution is relying on the statement of father of present applicant, who has stated that present applicant is using two sim cards and one is the said number from which the informant alleged to have received phone call and similar statements were given by the friends of the applicant. It was thus his submission that Call records are not fetched and service provider shows that said number/sim card number is in the name of one Vinayak Sudarshan and there is no statement of him. The Counsel also countered the Police's reliance on a consent letter signed by Applicant stating that he had given a phone call to informant and, therefore, then his voice sample has been taken by submitting that before the report of Voice Analyst is received, the charge sheet was filed and the said consent letter cannot be used as confession and therefore, the charge sheet which was filed without proper evidence needs to be quashed and set-aside.

The Counsel averred that even the transcripts show that Applicant has not shown any disrespect to late leader Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar but the insult was directed was against the informant who was then taking disadvantage of his caste and making allegations and comments against other religion or caste.

The Court at the outset referred to the Supreme Court's decision in B.V. Ram Kumar vs. State of Telangana and another and noted that for prosecuting a person for the offence punishable under Section 505 or 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code there should be a compliance of Section 196(1A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

".....even after taking note of that letter dated 16.10.2019, which was received by Collector’s office, no previous sanction has been given. Neither there is previous sanction from Central Government nor from the State Government nor from District Magistrate also. The charge sheet has been filed on 07.01.2020. We are unable to get the date of taking cognizance by Special Judge, under the Atrocities Act, but, certainly, when special case has been registered in 2020, the concerned Court ought not to have delayed the act of taking cognizance till the date we heard the matter. The legal bar appears to have not been taken into consideration by the concerned Judge," the Court observed.

Noting that for an offence under Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, the requirement is that the person should make, publish or circulate any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote on the ground of religion, race etc., feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes, the Court stated that in the present matter, the conversation is on telephone.

"Though it is stated to have been made by a person; yet, except the informant nobody else had heard it. Therefore, the conversation qua informant, which cannot be covered under the ingredients of Section 505 or 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code," the Court said.

Further noting that taking the ingredients of Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(u) of the Atrocities Act, the ingredients are almost similar, the Court observed, "For this purpose, contents of First Information Report and prosecution story is that the words have been used which will show disrespect to the religious feelings of informant or those were uttered to promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will against him."

"The said post was against Brahmins. It was then stated that the said procession was to support terrorist activities of Brahmin community and even the post then makes allegations against the Brahmin community and at the end it is stated that if such persons are not stopped, then the security of the Indian Constitution is in danger. Obviously, it can be clearly seen that he had made allegations against another community/caste. Then what was the reaction from other persons ought to have contemplated by him or apprehended before he could place the post. He cannot justify his post or act of posting by saying that it was his personal opinion. He himself has stated in First Information Report that he received good as well as bad comments. What were those bad comments has not been explained by him and it appears that he has taken action against the person who had called from a particular number," the Court added.

It pointed out lacunas on part of the Investigating Officer in recording confession and the fact that confessional statement given to a Police Officer is not admissible in a Court of Law.

The Court concluded that there is no sign of disrespect to Baba Saheb Ambedkar in the conversations.

"we find that the said conversation absolutely does not show any disrespect to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Rather it is stated that the said caller was asking the informant, as to why he is using the name of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar when he is not behaving on his footsteps. At one place, it is specifically uttered by the caller that because of them Baba (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar) is defamed, he is respecting Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, but because of people like you the respect in him (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar) is reduced nowadays. This conversation in no way disrespect to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar or depict intention to disrespect or disturb harmony between two communities. Another important fact which we will have to consider is that it was the reaction of a person from the community against whom informant had posted provocative comments, so, that it has to be taken as a natural reaction. Person from only one community then cannot have right to object, if he had done some provocative act. There has to be reciprocal respect for persons amongst all the communities and castes. That is what is soul of constitutional scheme," the Court observed.

The Court added that nowadays everybody is sensitive about his own caste and community which is without showing or reciprocal respect to the other community or caste and if it take the said conversation as it is, then even the informant has disrespected or made provocative statements which are against the another community

"Therefore, on the same piece of evidence he cannot say that only the applicant has committed the offence. If neither community and persons in the community/caste are showing restraint and there are no efforts in bringing harmony, such incidences would increase in future. It is not necessary that each and every bad comment/post or speech should be reacted. There are sophisticated ways and means to show dissent to a person who give such provocative post," the Court said.

The Application was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Devendra Rajiv Patil vs. The State of Maharashtra (2025:BHC-AUG:6327-DB)

Appearances:

Applicant- Advocate S.S. Varma, Advocate S.S. Ladda

Respondent- Advocate S.A. Gaikwad, Advocate P.B. Waghmare

Click here to read/ download Order










Bombay High CourtJustice Vibha KankanwadiJustice Sanjay A. Deshmukh

Sheetal Joon