Bombay High Court
Nitin S/O Nagoraoji Mohod And Another vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Kotwali, Ps, ... on 20 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:12651-DB
Cri. APL.18.20.odt 1/9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)NO. 18/2020
1. Nitin S/o. Nagoraoji Mohod,
Aged about 59 years, Occu - Business,
R/o. 15/1, Saturana, Badnera Road,
Amravati-444607
2. Sanjay S/o. Mohanlal Chhabada,
Aged about 46 years, Occu - Business,
R/o. Flat No. 4, Icon Heights, Shankar
Nagar, Amravati-444601
... APPLICANTS
...VERSUS...
1. State Of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Kotwali Police Station, Amravati City,
Dist. Amravati.
2. Shri Amol Ramdas Ingle,
Aged about 32 years,
R/o. Matoshri Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar,
Gadge Nagar, Amravati City,
Dist. Amravati
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. D. Dewani, Advocate for applicants
Ms. L. Y. Malewar, Advocate for non-applicant no. 2.
Mr. N. B. Jawade, APP for non-applicant/State
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 20.11.2025
Cri. APL.18.20.odt 2/9
JUDGMENT (PER : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Heard. Admit.
2. 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 असे च 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 असे च 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
"(1) 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 fa-
cie constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code ex-
cept under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations 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.
(4) 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
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) 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.
(6) 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 con-
cerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance
of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is mali-
ciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him
due to private and personal grudge."
9. 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.
10. 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 :-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is allowed.
(ii) The First Information Report in connection with Crime No.
0513/2019 registered under Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(s)
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of
applicants only.
(iii) The application is disposed of in the above said terms.
(iv) The fees of the appointed counsel be quantified as per Rule.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Shubham
