Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Dagadu Gorakh Patil and Atul Jayprakash Suryawanshi, were accused in RCC No.7/2012 filed by the respondent Shivaji Jethya Walvi alleging offences including forgery, cheating, and an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The learned Magistrate, after examining the complainant and his witnesses on oath, issued process against the petitioners for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a revision before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed. They then approached the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction seeking quashing of the process. The main contention raised by the petitioners was that the complaint did not mention the caste of the accused persons or the complainant, which is essential for an offence under the SC & ST Act. The respondent's counsel relied on a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Pushpa Vijay Bonde v. State of Maharashtra, which held that the caste of the accused must be mentioned in the complaint. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the complaint indeed lacked any mention of the caste of the accused or the complainant. Consequently, the court held that the process issued by the Magistrate could not be sustained and quashed the same. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - Requirement of Caste Allegation - The complaint must specifically mention the caste of the accused and the complainant to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act. In the absence of such allegations, the process issued by the Magistrate is liable to be quashed. The court held that the omission to mention caste is fatal to the prosecution. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order issuing process under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be sustained when the complaint does not mention the caste of the accused or the complainant.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order issuing process against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is quashed. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Caste of accused and complainant must be mentioned in complaint under SC/ST Act
- Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- 1989
- Process cannot be issued without caste allegations
- Complaint must disclose ingredients of offence
