Bombay High Court Quashes FIR in SC/ST Act Case Due to Lack of Intent to Humiliate Based on Caste. Alleged Abusive Words Not Uttered in Public View and Absence of Caste-Based Insults Leads to Quashing of FIR Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 87
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicant, Avakash Ingole, filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No.109/2021 registered at Morshi Police Station, Amravati, for offences under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The FIR was lodged by the non-applicant No.2, Shivkali Dhurve, who alleged that the applicant had let out a shop to her on rent and had taken a security deposit of Rs.2,50,000. On 8th March 2021, when she was returning to her village in an auto-rickshaw, the applicant stopped the auto-rickshaw near Jaistambh Chowk, Morshi, and asked the driver to get down. The applicant then requested her to give a statement against one Hemant Lakde in a dispute. When she refused, the applicant allegedly abused her, saying, "Tula Pai Nahi Mi Tuze Hath wa Jibh Pan Kapun takin, Tu Godin Ahe Godinach Rahashil" (I will cut your hands and tongue, you are a cow and will remain a cow). The complainant got frightened and called the auto-rickshaw driver, and the applicant left. The complainant alleged that the abuse was based on her caste (Scheduled Tribe). The applicant contended that the allegations were false and that the FIR was an abuse of process of law. The court examined the FIR and the statements of witnesses. It noted that the alleged incident occurred inside an auto-rickshaw, which is not a public place, and there was no evidence that the abuse was uttered in public view. The court also observed that the alleged abusive words did not refer to the complainant's caste and were not intended to humiliate her on the ground of caste. The court further held that the ingredients of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC were not made out as the threat was not accompanied by any immediate action or capability to carry it out. The court concluded that the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law and quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Inherent Powers - The High Court can quash an FIR if the allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence or if the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. The court must consider the allegations in the FIR as a whole and determine whether a prima facie case is made out. (Paras 1-21)

B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) - Intent to Humiliate - Public View - For an offence under Section 3(1)(r), the insult or intimidation must be with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and must occur in public view. For Section 3(1)(s), the abuse must be based on caste. In the present case, the alleged abusive words were not uttered in public view as the incident occurred inside an auto-rickshaw, and there was no indication that the abuse was caste-based. Held that the essential ingredients of the offences are not made out, and the FIR is liable to be quashed. (Paras 10-20)

C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 506 - Criminal Intimidation - The threat must be to cause injury to the person, reputation, or property of the complainant. In this case, the alleged threat to cut hands and tongue was not accompanied by any immediate action or capability to carry out the threat, and the complainant did not report the matter immediately. Held that the ingredients of criminal intimidation are not satisfied. (Paras 10-20)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the FIR registered against the applicant for offences under Section 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences, particularly the intent to humiliate based on caste and the incident not occurring in public view.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the application and quashed FIR No.109/2021 dated 15th March 2021 registered at Morshi Police Station, along with all proceedings arising therefrom.

Law Points

  • Quashing of FIR
  • Section 482 Cr.P.C.
  • SC/ST Act
  • Intent to humiliate
  • Public view
  • Abuse not caste-based
  • Prima facie case
  • Abuse of process of law
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (BOM) (08) 73

Criminal Application (APL) No.484 of 2021

2021-08-26

A.S. Chandurkar, G.A. Sanap

Shri P.R. Agrawal for Applicant, Shri D.P. Thakare for Non-applicant No.1, Shri D.I. Jain for Non-applicant No.2

Avakash s/o. Sudhakarrao Ingole

State of Maharashtra and Shivkali Shyamrao Dhurve

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings.

Remedy Sought

The applicant sought quashing of FIR No.109/2021 registered at Morshi Police Station for offences under Section 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

Filing Reason

The applicant alleged that the FIR was false and an abuse of process of law, as the allegations did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences.

Issues

Whether the FIR discloses a prima facie case for offences under Section 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act? Whether the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law warranting quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?

Submissions/Arguments

The applicant argued that the allegations are false and that the FIR was lodged due to a dispute over the security deposit. The alleged incident did not occur in public view, and the abusive words were not caste-based. The ingredients of the offences are not made out. The non-applicant No.2 argued that the applicant abused her with caste-based words and threatened her, and the FIR discloses a cognizable offence. The application should be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

For an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, the insult or intimidation must be with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and must occur in public view. For Section 3(1)(s), the abuse must be based on caste. In the present case, the incident occurred inside an auto-rickshaw, not in public view, and the alleged abusive words did not refer to the complainant's caste. Therefore, the essential ingredients of the offences are not made out, and the FIR is liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of law.

Judgment Excerpts

The incident in question had taken place inside the auto-rickshaw. It cannot be said that the alleged abusive words were uttered in public view. The alleged abusive words do not refer to the caste of the complainant. There is no material to show that the applicant intended to humiliate the complainant on the ground of her caste. The continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.

Procedural History

On 15th March 2021, the non-applicant No.2 lodged an oral report leading to registration of FIR No.109/2021 at Morshi Police Station for offences under Section 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The applicant filed Criminal Application (APL) No.484 of 2021 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, seeking quashing of the FIR. The court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 17th August 2021, pronouncing it on 26th August 2021.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 506
  • Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Wife's Transfer Application in Matrimonial Dispute Citing Delay Tactics and Contradictory Allegations. Transfer Petition Rejected as Matter at Advanced Stage Before Family Court; Court Allows Video Conferencing Facility an...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Plaintiff's Appeal in Suit Against Ex-Ruler for Recovery of Price of Goods. Consent of Central Government Under Section 87-B CPC Held Mandatory Even for Pending Suits, and Section 87-B Not Violative of Article 14 of the Consti...