Bombay High Court

Rajesh S/O Dasaram Lanjewar vs State Of Mah. Thr. S.D.P.O. Gondia ... on 12 November, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:11919-DB




              Judgment

                                                                495 apl1362.21

                                           1

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

                  CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1362 OF 2021

              Rajesh s/o Dasaram Lanjewar,
              aged about: 36 years, occupation: agriculture,
              r/o Khamari, tahsil and district Gondia. ..... Applicant.

                                   :: V E R S U S ::

              1. State of Maharashtra,
              through SDPO Gondia Gramin
              Police Station, taluka and district Gondia.

              2. Kailaskumar s/o Bhajandas Sakhare,
              age about: 40 years, occupation: agriculture,
              r/o Ramabai Ward No.03, Near
              Keshav Khanak Seeds Co., at post Khamari,
              tahsil and district Gondia.  ..... Non-applicants.

              Shri Amit Hunge, Counsel for the Applicant.
              Mrs.S.V.Kolhe, Addl.P.P. for the NA No.1/State.
              Ms.Mohini Sharma, Counsel for NA No.2.

              CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE &
                      NANDESH S.DESHPANDE, JJ.

              CLOSED ON : 07/11/2025
              PRONOUNCED ON : 12/11/2025

              JUDGMENT ( Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke)

.....2/-

Judgment

495 apl1362.21

1. By this application, the applicant seeks

quashing of FIR bearing registration No.330/2021 and

consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing

Special Case No.114/2021 under Sections 294, 504,

and 506 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(r)(s) and

3(2)(v-a) of the The Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

(SC ST Act).

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the

application are as under:

The applicant is arraigned as accused on the

basis of report lodged by non-applicant No.2

Kailaskumar Bhajandas Sakhare on allegation that on

6.7.2021, at about 11:30 am, he was standing along

with his brother and other relatives and work of

construction of drainage was in progress. At the relevant

time, the applicant along with other co-accused and 5-6 .....3/-

Judgment

495 apl1362.21

unknown persons came there and abused him on his

caste by saying, ", lkys egsjks ds edk.k] vfrdze.k es gs " and

also abused him in a filthy language. On the basis of

the said report, the police have registered the crime

against the applicant.

3. After registration of the crime, the

investigating officer has recorded various statements,

and after completion of the investigation, submitted

chargesheet against the applicant.

4. Heard learned counsel Shri Amit Hunge for

the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

Mrs.S.V.Kolhe for non-applicant No.1 (State), and

learned counsel Ms.Mohini Sharma for non-applicant

No.2 (the complainant).

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted

that as far as application under Section 3(1)(r)(s) and

.....4/-

Judgment

495 apl1362.21

3(2)(v-a) of the SC ST Act is concerned, the same is not

applicable as general allegations are levelled against all

the accused. There is no specific allegation that

humiliating or insulting words are used by the

applicant. Even, accepting allegations as it is, except

reference of the caste, there is no material to connect

the applicant with the alleged offence. Mere filthy

language is not sufficient to attract Section 294 of the

IPC and, therefore, the offence under Section 294 of the

IPC is also not made out and, therefore the FIR against

the applicant deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. In support of his contentions, he placed

reliance on following decisions:

1. Karuppudayar vs. State, represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy and ors, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 215; and

2. Criminal Appeal No.555/2018 (Konde Nageshwar Rao vs. A.Shriram Chandra Murty .....5/-

Judgment

495 apl1362.21

and anr) decid3ed by the Supreme Court on 23.7.2025.

7. Per contra, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State strongly opposed the said

contentions on the ground that there is specific

allegation as far as the applicant is concerned. Besides

abuses, the applicant has also used a filthy language

which is sufficient to attract Section 294 of the IPC. In

view of that, the application deserves to be rejected.

8. Learned counsel for non-applicant No.2 also

endorsed the said contentions and invited our attention

to various statements of the witnesses.

9. After hearing both the sides and perusing the

FIR and the statements, it revealed that there was

previous dispute between the complainant and the

applicant on account of construction of drainage in front

.....6/-

Judgment

495 apl1362.21

of the house of the complainant. On that count, the

alleged incident appears to have taken place.

10. As far as the application in respect of

provisions of the SC ST Act is concerned, allegation is

that it was the applicant who abused the complainant

by saying ", lkys egsjks ds edk.k] vfrdze.k es gs".

Perusal of the statement reveals that except

reference of the caste, there are no abuses as far as the

caste is concerned.

Another allegation is that the applicant has

also abused him in a filthy language and, therefore, he

has committed the offence under Section 294 of the

IPC.

11. Section 294 of the IPC talks about obscene

acts and songs. The said Section is reproduced as under

for reference:

.....7/-

Judgment

495 apl1362.21

294. Obscene acts and songs.- Whoever, to the annoyance of others - (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place,shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.

12. The test of obscenity under Section 294(b) of

the Indian Penal Code is, whether the tendency of the

matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt

those whose minds are open to such immoral

influences. This test has been uniformly formed in

India.

13. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Ranjit

D.Udeshi vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in AIR

1965 SC 881 observed that the test of obscenity is the

substantial tendency to corrupt by arousing lustful

desires.

.....8/-

Judgment

495 apl1362.21

14. As far as the present case is concerned, the

lecherous elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings

are absent. None of records discloses that the alleged

words used by the applicant would constitute lecherous

elements. Mere abuses or mere utterance of obscene

words are not sufficient, but there must be further proof

to establish that the act was done to the annoyance of

others, which is lacking in the present case. None of

statements speaks about obscene words due to which

they felt annoyed and, therefore, in absence of material,

the offence under Section 294 of the IPC is not made

out.

15. Coming to aspect of application of Section

3(1)(r) of the SC ST Act, basic ingredients to constitute

offence under the above Section are; (a) accused person

must not be a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled

Tribe; (b) accused must intentionally insult or

.....9/-

Judgment

495 apl1362.21

intimidate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled

Tribe; (c) accused must do so with the intent to

humiliate such a person; and (d) accused must do so at

any place within public view.

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal

No.2622/2024 (Shajan Skaria vs. The State of Kerala

and anr), observed that all insults or intimidation to a

member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe will not

amount to an offence under the Act, unless such insults

or intimidation are on the ground that the victim

belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

It has been further observed that offence

under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC ST Act is not

established merely on the fact that the complainant is

member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, unless

there is an intention to humiliate such a member for the

reason that he belongs to such community. In other .....10/-

Judgment

495 apl1362.21

words, it is not the purport of the Act of 1989 that every

act of intentional insult or intimidation meted by a

person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or

Scheduled Tribe to a person who belongs to a Scheduled

Caste or Scheduled Tribe would attract Section 3(1)(r)

of the Act, 1989 merely because it is committed against

a person who happens to be a member of a Scheduled

Caste or Scheduled Tribe. On the contrary, Section 3(1)

(r) of the Act, 1989 is attracted where the reason for the

intentional insult or intimidation is that the person who

is subjected to it belongs to a Scheduled Caste or

Scheduled Tribe.

It has been further observed that words "with

intent to humiliate" as they appear in the text of Section

3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are inextricably linked to the

caste identity of the person who is subjected to

intentional insult or intimidation. Not every intentional

.....11/-

Judgment

495 apl1362.21

insult or intimidation of a member of a SC/ST

community will result into a feeling of caste-based

humiliation.

17. Thus, mere reference of the caste of the

victim while communicating is not sufficient to attract

the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC ST Act.

18. The above observations are further endorsed

by the Hon'ble Apex in the case of Karuppudayar vs.

State supra wherein it is held that perusal of Section

3(1)(r) of the SC ST Act would reveal that for

constituting an offence thereunder, it has to be

established that the accused intentionally insults or

intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a

Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place

within public view.

.....12/-

Judgment

495 apl1362.21

19. Similarly, for constituting an offence under

Section 3(1)(s) of the SC ST Act, it will be necessary

that the accused abuses any member of a Scheduled

Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place

within public view.

20. Taking the allegations in the FIR at their face

value, it would reveal that what is alleged is that the

applicant abused the complainant by naming his caste

and insulted him.

21. It is thus clear that even as per the FIR, the

incident has taken place in front of the house of the

complainant and except reference of the caste, there is

nothing on record to show that the complainant was

abused intentionally by the applicant.

22. We are, therefore, of the considered view that

except reference of the caste, there is nothing on record

.....13/-

Judgment

495 apl1362.21

to show that with an intent to humiliate the

complainant, abuses were in the caste. Mere reference

of the caste is not sufficient to attract the provisions of

Section 3(1)(r) or 3(2)(v-a) of the SC ST Act.

23. The law relating to quashing of FIRs has been

explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State

of Haryana and ors vs. Bhajan Lal and ors, reported in

1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335 wherein principles

have been laid down which are required to be

considered while considering applications for quashing

of the FIRs, which read as under:

(a) where the allegations made in the First

Information Report or the complaint, even if

they are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima facie

constitute any offence or make out a case

against the accused;

.....14/-

Judgment

495 apl1362.21

(b) where the allegations in the First

Information Report and other materials, if

any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose

a cognizable offence, justifying an

investigation by police officers under Section

156(1) of the Code except under an order of

a Magistrate within the purview of Section

155(2) of the Code;

made in the FIR or 'complaint and the

evidence collected in support of the same do

not disclose the commission of any offence

and make out a case against the accused;

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not

constitute a cognizable offence but constitute

only a non-cognizable offence, no

investigation is permitted by a police officer .....15/-

Judgment

495 apl1362.21

without an order of a Magistrate as

contemplated under Section 155(2) of the

Code;

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or

complaint are so absurd and inherently

improbable on the basis of which no prudent

person can ever reach a just conclusion that

there is sufficient ground for proceeding

against the accused;

(f) where there is an express legal bar

engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code

or the concerned Act (under which a criminal

proceeding is instituted) to the institution and

continuance of the proceedings and/or where

there is a specific provision in the Code or the

concerned Act, providing efficacious redress

for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

.....16/-

Judgment

495 apl1362.21

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fide and/or where the

proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on

the accused and with a view to spite him due

to private and personal grudge".

24. The power under Section 482 of the CrPC is

required to be exercised sparingly. However, at the

same time, the court would not be justified in

embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or

genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the

FIR or the complaint. The court would be justified in

exercising its discretion, if the case falls under any of

clauses drawn by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

State of Haryana and ors vs. Bhajan Lal and ors supra.

The allegations in the FIR, even if they are taken at their

face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima

.....17/-

Judgment

495 apl1362.21

facie constitute the offence either under Section 3(1)(r)

or 3(2)(v-a) of the SC ST Act. The offence is also not

made out under Section 294 of the IPC as mere abuses

are not sufficient to attract the offence under the said

Section.

25. In this view of the matter, the application

deserves to be allowed. Hence, we proceed to pass

following order:

ORDER

(1) The Criminal Application is allowed.

(2) FIR bearing registration No.330/2021 and

consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing

Special Case No.114/2021 under Sections 294, 504,

and 506 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(r)(s) and

3(2)(v-a) of the The Scheduled Castes and the

.....18/-

Judgment

495 apl1362.21

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

are hereby quashed and set aside.

Application stands disposed of.

(NANDESH S.DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

!! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 13/11/2025 10:09:57