AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
Shri N. H. Joshi, learned APP waives service of notice for non-applicant/State.
Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels for the parties.
The present application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeks quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No.576/2025 registered with Police Station MIDC, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 75, 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “Act of 1989”) and the consequent charge-sheet pending on the file of the Court of learned Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Nagpur on account of settlement between the parties.
The brief facts of the case, as per the FIR, are as under:-
Applicant no.1 is the Secretary of the Late Warluji Gudadhe Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur. Whereas, applicant no.2 is the Headmistress working at the Late Warluji Gudadhe Primary School, Nagpur, a government aided school run by the said Sanstha. Applicant no.3 was working as an Assistant Teacher with the said School since 2011.
ii) The FIR depicts that in March-2013, applicant no.1 took away the cheque-book of the salary bank account of applicant no.3 and he used to withdraw half salary earned by applicant no.3 from the said school. However, in the month of April-2024, applicant no.3 stopped giving her part salary to applicant no.1 and started withdrawing her entire salary from the bank account. Thereafter, applicant nos. 1 and 2 started abusing applicant no.3 by inflecting castiest hurls in the name of her caste. It is also alleged that applicant no.1 also demanded sexual favours from applicant no.3. Moreover, applicant no.2 made caste related aspersions towards applicant no.3 along with other derogatory statements in presence of other Teachers in the said school. Therefore, on her complaint, the aforesaid offence came to be registered against applicant nos.1 and 2.
The present application is jointly filed by applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3 wherein, it has been contended by the applicants that dispute regarding salary of applicant no.3 has been amicably settled between themselves. Applicant no.3 has tendered an affidavit dated 28.08.2026 across the bar, which is taken on record and is marked as ‘X’ for identification. It is contented by applicant no.3 in the affidavit that there was dispute between applicant nos.1 and 2 and herself and she was dismissed from the service. However, now both the parties have amicably settled the dispute before the School Tribunal, Nagpur. It is also contended by applicant no.3 that she does not want to prosecute applicant nos. 1 and 2 and has no objection if the FIR is quashed against applicant nos.1 and 2.
Applicant no.3 is personally present in the Court and duly identified by her counsel. On enquiry she has reiterated the contents of the affidavit submitted and stated that she has no objection if the FIR and consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR are quashed and set aside.
No doubt, apart from the provisions of the IPC, there are allegation of humiliation of applicant no.3, as member of the Scheduled Caste therefore, the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Act of 1989 has been invoked in the charge-sheet against applicant nos.1 and 2. Since, the offence under the Act of 1989 are against the society and the object of the Act of 1989 is to prevent the atrocities and upliftment of the members of the backward classes, the FIR having allegations of defeating this object cannot be quashed.
In this context, the Supreme Court in the decision in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1, in para no. 17 has held as under:-
“17.On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a ‘special statute’ would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.”
If the material available on record suggests that the genesis of the crime is some other dispute, rather if the dispute is pre-dominantely of a civil nature then in this peculiar circumstance of the case, the Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR even if the provisions of the Act of 1989 are alleged against the applicants.
A reference can be made to the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another2, wherein it has been observed in para no. 29 as under:-
“29.1.Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2.When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i)ends of justice, or
(ii)to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3.Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4.On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5.While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.”
It appears from the fact of the present case that applicant nos.1 and 2 are the part of the Management of the Society which runs the school where applicant no.3 was working as an Assistant Teacher. It appears that there were allegation against each-other on account of non-payment of the salary of applicant no.3 which is the genesis of the dispute as well as the cause of altercation between applicant nos.1 and 2 and applicant no.3. Rather, applicant no.3 was dismissed from the service after holding an enquiry however, now the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The fact of the present case also demonstrate that the dispute between applicant nos.1 and 2 and applicant no.3 is of private nature. Thus, the chances of the prosecution culminating into conviction are bleak and distant. In these peculiar circumstance of the case, I am of the view that this Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR and consequent proceedings. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
The application is allowed.
ii) FIR No.576/2025 registered with Police Station MIDC, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 75, 352 and 351(2) of the BNS read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the consequent charge-sheet pending before the Court of learned Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Nagpur are hereby quashed qua applicant nos.1 and 2 subject to deposit of total costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) in the “Public Welfare Fund” with Union Bank of India, High Court Branch, Nagpur having account no. 129712010001014 and IFSC Code UBIN0812978 by applicant nos.1 and 2.