Divyam Harishankar Samarit vs Juieli Pradip Masram And One
2021 Latest Caselaw 15421 Bom

                                                    1                  Cri.APL No.933-19-J (1).doc

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

             CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 933 OF 2019

 Divyam Harishankar Samarit,
 Aged about 26 years,
 Occupation - Student,
 Resident of Near Bus Stop,
 Tumsar, District Bhandara,
 M. 7593861327.                                                       ... APPLICANT

                   ----VERSUS----

 1.     Juieli Pradip Masram,
        Age- 23 yrs., Occ. Student,
        R/o. 1001, Beltarodi Road,
        Ramteke Nagar, Royal Towers,
        Nagpur.

 2.     State of Maharashtra,
        Through Police Station Officer,
        Police Station, Ajani, Nagpur.                       .. NON-APPLICANTS

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri C. B. Barve, Advocate for Applicant.
 Shri T. A. Mirza, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant No.1/State.
 Shri A. S. Chakotkar, Advocate (Appointed) for Non-applicant No.2.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          CORAM:               M. S. SONAK AND
                               PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.

DATE: 27.10.2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER M. S. SONAK, J.)

1. Heard Mr. C. B. Barve, learned Counsel for the

applicant, Mr. A. S. Chakotkar, learned counsel appointed for

respondent No.1 under the Legal Aid Scheme, and Mr. T. A. Mirza

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith at the

request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the

parties.

3. Mr. C. B. Barve, the learned Counsel for the applicant at

the outset submits that the challenge in this application is

restricted to the application of Section 3(1)(g) or for that matter

any other provision of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the said

Act).

4. Mr. Barve, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits

that from the reading of the complaint/First Information Report, it

is more than apparent that no allegations to attract the provisions

of the said Act are to be found therein. He submits that merely

because the complainant has alleged that she is a member of a

Scheduled Tribes, that by itself, is not sufficient to attract the

provisions of the said Act. He points out that the complainant has

herself stated that she was in the relationship with the petitioner

for a considerable period and it is only after the breakup that

some telephone calls were exchanged. He, therefore, submits that

the invocation and applicability of the provisions of the said Act

deserve to be quashed.

5. Mr. A. S. Chakotkar, learned Counsel for respondent

No.2 submits that the complainant, in this case, is admittedly

belonging to the Scheduled Tribes category. He submits that the

Section referred to in the First Information Report may not be

appropriate but, this is the case where the allegations speak about

abusing the member of a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any

place within the public view or in any case, the allegations speak

about intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to

humiliate the member of the Scheduled Tribes.

6. We have considered the rival contentions and also

perused the material on record, which include primarily the

allegations made in the complaint and transcribed in the First

Information Report.

7. According to us, the complainant, apart from stating as

a matter of fact that she belongs to the Scheduled Tribes category

has not really alleged that she was intentionally insulted or

intimidated with intent to humiliate her as a member of the

Scheduled Tribe category or that she was abused in her caste

name in any place within the public view. The application of

Section 3(1)(g) of the said Act is, therefore, untenable because

that provision speaks about wrongful dispossession of a member

of a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises which is not even

remotely the allegation in the complaint or the First Information

Report. There is no allegation that even the offense under Section

354-D of the Indian Penal Code was committed by the petitioner

knowing that the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Tribe

category. Besides, the Complainant has admitted being in a

relationship for a considerable period with the Applicant. Thus,

even if all the allegations in the complaint/First Information

Report are taken as correct, we find that no offense is under the

provisions of the said Act has been alleged or made out against

the petitioner.

8. Therefore, on the aforesaid basis, we quash the

applicability of Section 3(1)(g) of the said Act or for that matter,

the applicability of the provisions of the said Act as recorded in

the First Information Report. The First Information Report insofar

as the other offenses alleged to have been committed by the

petitioner under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code is

however not interfered with.

9. The Rule is partly absolute in this application to the

aforesaid extent. There shall be no order for costs.

10. The interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated.

11. In this case, Mr. A. S. Chakotkar, learned Counsel was

appointed under the Legal Aid Scheme to appear on behalf of the

Non-applicant No.1 herein. Accordingly, we quantify his fees at

Rs.2000/- and this shall be in addition to our gratitude for having

appeared for this matter and done his best.

                   PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.                M. S. SONAK, J.




RGurnule