Bombay High Court
Vinod Singh And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 16 December, 2021
Bench: S. K. Shinde
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH 33-APEAL-781-2021.odt
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2021.12.16
18:42:36
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.781 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2308 OF 2021
Vinod Singh and Anr. ...Appellants
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
...
Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhayay for the Appellants.
Smt.S.V.Sonawane, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Veerdhawal Deshmukh, appointed advocate for Respondent
No.2.
API Ganesh Bhamare, Kashimira P.Stn. Present.
CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.
DATE : DECEMBER 16, 2021.
P.C. :
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, the learned
prosecutor for the State and the learned advocate (appointed) for the
complainant.
2 Appellants, are Father-in-law and Mother-in-law of the
complainant. She lodged the complaint against her husband and the
Shivgan 1/4
33-APEAL-781-2021.odt
appellants. Whereupon, offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3(1)(r) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 ('Act of 1989' for short) came to be registered. She
belongs to Scheduled Caste. The First Information Report implies and
suggests, marital discord between the husband and wife. Therefore,
alleged caste abuses cannot be said to be hurled only because
complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste. The Apex Court in the case
of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand , (2020) 10 SCC 710 has held
in paragraphs 16 and 18 as under:
"16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land
which is the subject-matter of civil dispute between the
parties as per Respondent 2 herself. Due to dispute, the
appellant and others were not permitting Respondent 2 to
cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the matter
is regarding possession of property pending before the civil
court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the
said property would not disclose an offence under the Act
unless the victim is abused, intimidated or harassed only
for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe.
18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established
merely on the fact that the informant is a member of
Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a
member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the
reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present
Shivgan 2/4
33-APEAL-781-2021.odt
case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land.
The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who
claims title over the property. If such person happens to
be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of
the Act is not made out."
3 Therefore, in consideration of the facts of the case and
the judgment of the Apex Court in Hitesh Verma (Supra), in my
view, allegations do not constitute offence under the Act of 1989.
4 Thus, in the event of arrest of the appellants in Crime
No. 579 of 2021 registered with Kashimira Police Station, they shall
be released on executing PR bond for the sum of Rs.10,000/- each
with one or more sureties in like sum.
5 Appellants shall furnish necessary particulars of their
residence and contact details to the Investigating Officer within seven
days from today and shall join investigation as and when called.
6 The appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
Shivgan 3/4
33-APEAL-781-2021.odt
7 It is made clear that observations made hereinabobve be
construed as expression of opinion only for the purpose of bail and
the same shall not in any way influence the trial in other
proceedings.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)
Shivgan 4/4
