Nitin Mohod & Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

(PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

Heard. Admit.

Present application is preferred by the applicants for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with Crime No. 0513/2019, registered under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by the informant, Amol Ramdas Ingle, on an allegation that he belongs to the Boudh community, whereas the present applicants are from the other community and not belonging to the Schedule or Schedule Tribes. As per his allegations, on 25.12.2019 at about 15:30 P.M., within the public view, he uttered the words by saying "तु बौद्ध आहे काय साले असेच असते हे ", and thereby he is humiliated within the public view. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicants.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, who submitted that even accepting the allegation as it is, at its his face value, except the reference of the caste, there is no material to connect the present applicants. Even from the various statements recorded, nowhere it reveals that there was any intent to humiliate or insult based on caste identity, to attract the said offence, it has to be established. Thus, no prima facie case is made out against the present applicants, and therefore the FIR deserves to be quashed. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Yogendra Singh Jadon and Anr., reported in (2020) 12 SCC 588, Criminal Application No. 1080/2022, decided by this Court on 15.11.2022, and the Roshan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in 2025 NCBDC-NAG 10950.

Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said contentions on the ground that the informant was humiliated within the public view, thus the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) are complied with. Learned counsel for the complainant also endorsed the same contention and submitted that the intention of the present applicant to humiliate the informant within the public view is established from the statements of the witnesses.

On hearing both the sides and on going through the investigation papers, from which it reveals that as far the recitals of the FIR are concerned, the sentence uttered by the present applicant "तु बौद्ध आहे काय साले असेच असते हे " shows that there was a reference to the caste, whether only reference to the caste to attract the Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) is sufficient or not. The basic ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act of 1989 (i) accused person must not be a member of the Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe, (ii) accused must intentionally insult or intimidate a member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe, (iii) accused must doing so with the intent to humiliate such a person, (iv) accused must doing so at any place within public view. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shajan Skaria Vs. State of Kerala and Anr., in Criminal Appeal No. 2622 of 24, decided on 23.08.2024, in Para No. 58, observed that “all insults or intimidation to a member of a Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe will not amount to an offence under the Act, 1989 unless such insult or intimidation is on the ground that the victim belongs to Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribes.” By referring the earlier decision in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710, the Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is not establish clearly on the fact that the complainant is a member of the Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe unless there is an intention to humiliate such a member for the reason that he belongs to such community. In other words, it is not the purport of the Act, 1989 that every act of intention, insult or intimidation committed by a person who is not a member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe to a person who belongs to a Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe would attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 merely because it is committed against the person who happens to be a member of a Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe. On the contrary, Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is attracted where the reason for the intention, insult or intimidation is that the person who is subjected to it belongs to a Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe.

While interpreting the meaning of the expression “intent to humiliate”, the Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that “the words with intent to humiliate”, as it appear in the text of Section 3(1)(r) the Act, 1989, are explicably links to the caste identity of the person who is subjected to intention, insult or intimidation. Not every intention, insult or intimidation of a member of a Schedule Caste / Schedule Tribe community will result into a feeling of caste-based humiliation. It is only in those cases where the intention, insult or intimidation to express either due to the prevailing practice of untouchability or reinforce the historically entrenched ideas like the superiority of the "upper caste" over the lower caste untouchables, the notion of purity and pollution, etc., that it could said to be an insult or intimidation of the type envisaged by the Act, 1989.

Having regard to the above said principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and considering the facts of the present case, there is nothing to even prima facie indicate that the applicant has utter such words with intent to humiliate or insult the informant. In fact, we have knowledge of the fact that victim is a member of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. The recitals of the First Information Report only shows that there is a reference of the caste, and that is also the allegation is omnibus in nature, there is no specific allegations levelled against the present applicants.

At this stage, the principles of the quashing of the First Information Report are also requires to be looked into. In the case of State of Haryana & Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the principle guidelines while considering the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Here in the present case, considering the recitals of the First Information Report as well as various statements recorded during the investigation, nowhere it reveals that with an intention to humiliate or insult the informant the such words are used, it is only to the extent the reference of the caste. Thus, prima facie it is appears that First Information Report is lodged only with a contention that the informant was referred by his caste. Therefore, no prima facie case is made out as far as the present applicants are concerned.

From the above referred contents of the First Information Report, we do not find that any of the allegations made in the First Information Report make out a case against the present applicants either under Section 3(1)(r) or under Section 3(1)(s). Thus, we have arrived at the conclusion that from the contents of the First Information Report no offence is constituted under the above provisions. Having observed that the offences on the subject under the Atrocities Act are not attracted, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass following order :-