Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nilesh Popatrao Ranaware, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of FIR No. 24/2006 registered at the instance of respondent No.2 under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The incident occurred on 7/3/2006 and 8/4/2006, and the FIR was lodged on 28/4/2006. In the original report, respondent No.2 nowhere mentioned any caste or tribe; the word used by the petitioner was 'bhamtya', which means 'deceiver' or 'cheater'. Subsequently, respondent No.2 gave an additional statement substituting the word 'bhamtya' with 'mangtya', which refers to a scheduled caste. However, respondent No.2 later swore an affidavit disclosing that the supplementary statement pointing out abuse in the name of caste was not correct, thereby withdrawing it. The High Court, after hearing the parties, noted that respondent No.2, despite being served, chose not to appear. The court found that the original complaint lacked any caste reference and the supplementary statement had been withdrawn by the complainant himself. Therefore, the court held that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the process of law and quashed the FIR. The rule was made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - SC/ST Act - Original complaint did not mention any caste; the word used was 'bhamtya' meaning deceiver - Complainant later gave supplementary statement substituting 'mangtya' (a caste slur) but subsequently swore an affidavit withdrawing that statement - Held that continuation of prosecution would be an abuse of process of law, hence FIR quashed (Paras 3-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR under the SC/ST Act should be quashed when the original complaint did not mention any caste and the complainant later withdrew the supplementary statement alleging caste-based abuse.
Final Decision
The court made the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (b), quashing the FIR and all proceedings. No costs.
Law Points
- Quashing of FIR
- Withdrawal of supplementary statement
- No caste reference in original complaint
- Abuse of process of law
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (11) 29
Writ Petition No.1056 of 2006
B. P. Dharmadhikari, Sarang V. Kotwal
Mr. S. Shekhar a/w Ms. Choudhary, Ms. Deshmukh i/b J. Shekhar & Co. for the Petitioner; Smt. S. D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent
The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of FIR registered under the SC/ST Act.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of FIR No.24/2006 and all proceedings arising therefrom.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was accused of using caste-based abusive language, but the original complaint did not mention any caste and the complainant later withdrew the supplementary statement alleging caste abuse.
Previous Decisions
The High Court had issued notice for final disposal on 16/6/2006 and admitted the matter for final hearing on 27/2/2007, staying further prosecution in CR No.24/2006.
Issues
Whether the FIR under the SC/ST Act should be quashed when the original complaint did not mention any caste and the complainant later withdrew the supplementary statement alleging caste-based abuse.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the original complaint did not mention any caste and the word used was 'bhamtya' meaning deceiver, not a caste slur.
The respondent No.2 initially gave a supplementary statement substituting 'mangtya' but later swore an affidavit withdrawing that statement.
Ratio Decidendi
When the original complaint does not mention any caste and the complainant subsequently withdraws the supplementary statement alleging caste-based abuse, continuing prosecution under the SC/ST Act would be an abuse of the process of law, warranting quashing of the FIR.
Judgment Excerpts
In the entire report dated 28/4/2006 respondent No.2 nowhere mentions any caste or tribe.
It appears that therefore respondent No.2 himself has withdrawn his supplementary statement.
In the situation we make rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1056 of 2006 in the Bombay High Court. On 16/6/2006, the court issued notice for final disposal and on 27/2/2007 admitted the matter for final hearing, staying further prosecution in CR No.24/2006. The ad-interim order continued until the final judgment on 19/11/2018.
Acts & Sections
- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:
- Constitution of India: Article 226
