Bombay High Court
Sudhir S/O Narayanrao Shende vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Loni, ... on 10 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:10865-DB
1 926.APL.546-2020..JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 546 OF 2020
Sudhir S/o Narayanrao Shende
Aged : 64 Years, Occ: Service,
R/o. Vishwanath Nagar, Amravati,
Tq. & Dist. Amravati. APPLICANT
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O., P.S. Loni, Tahsil
Nandgaon Khandeshwar,
Dist. Amravati.
2. Guddu S/o Prabhakar Dhoke,
Aged : 41 Years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o-Loni Takli, Tahsil Nandgaon
Khandeshwar, Dist. Amravati. NON-APPLICANTS
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. S.B. Gandhe, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Neeraj Jawade, APP for the Non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr. A.G. Hunge, Advocate (Appointed) for the Non-applicant
No.2.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 10th OCTOBER, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :- (PER : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
2 926.APL.546-2020..JUDGMENT.odt
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.
3. The present Application is preferred by the
Applicant for quashing of the First Information Report in
connection with Crime No.60/2020 registered with Police
Station Loni, District Amravati for the offence punishable under
Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections
3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short
the "Act of 1989").
4. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal
of the present Application are as follows:-
The FIR came to be lodged by the Complainant
Guddu Dhoke thereby stating that, he is a farmer by occupation
and is the Vice-President of Ashok Vidyalaya, Loni. On
05.03.2020 he went to Ashok Vidyalaya for discussing the
transfer of Peon Yunus Khan Qureshi. The Complainant was
3 926.APL.546-2020..JUDGMENT.odt
accompanied with other villagers also. The President Shri
Sudhir Shende who is the present Applicant was seating in his
chamber, was requested by the Complainant that, the Peon
Yunus Khan is having young children and he is not keeping well,
hence he may not be transferred. The President Sudhir Shende
had therefore started abusing the complainant referring to his
caste and further stated that, he is the Chairman and is running
the entire administration and he would not listen to the
Complainant. The accused also uttered the words "tk;js [kkVD;k]
[kkVdsgks ts gksbZy rs d:u ?ks] 'kkGk ek>h vkgs] iz'kklu o inkf/kdkjh ek>s vkgs] rq eyk lYyk
ns.kkjk dks.k" and thereby insulted and humiliated the Complainant.
On the basis of the said report Police have registered the crime
against the present Applicant.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant, who
submitted that as far as the recitals of the FIR is concerned,
except the reference to the caste there is no such allegation
which would indicate that there was an intentional insult of the
Complainant by the present Applicant. Moreover, the alleged
incident has not within the public view, and therefore, no
offence is made out against the present Applicant. He further
4 926.APL.546-2020..JUDGMENT.odt
submitted that as far as the offence under Section 504
intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace is
concerned, the ingredients are not made out either to establish
the offence under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC.
6. In support of his contention he placed reliance on
Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi Vs. The State of Odisha & Ors.,
MANU/SC/1483/2024, Priti Agarwalla & Ors. Vs. The State of
GNCT of Delhi & Ors., AIR 2024 SC 3097, Shajan Skaria Vs.
The State of Kerala & Ors., MANU/SC/0936/2024 & Fiona
Shrikhande Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
MANU/SC/0853/2013.
7. Per contra, learned APP and learned Counsel for the
Non-applicant No.2 vehemently submitted that, the statements
of witnesses as well as the recitals of the FIR shows that with an
intention to insult the Complainant the Applicant has uttered
the words and thereby committed an offence. The intention of
the present Applicant is apparent from the recitals of the FIR as
well as various statements of the witnesses. They submitted
that, though the incident has occurred in chamber, however it
was occurred in presence of various persons, and therefore, it is
5 926.APL.546-2020..JUDGMENT.odt
within the public view. In view of that, the Application deserves
to be rejected.
8. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
recitals of the FIR and entire investigation papers which shows
that, during investigation the Investigating Officer has recorded
various statements of the witnesses. As far as the allegations are
concerned which shows that, the Complainant had been to the
office of the present Applicant to discuss about the transfer of
one Peon and during altercation of the words the alleged abuses
are uttered by the present Applicant. The words used by the
present Applicant are "tk;js [kkVD;k] [kkVdsgks ts gksbZy rs d:u ?ks] 'kkGk ek>h
vkgs] iz'kklu o inkf/kdkjh ek>s vkgs] rq eyk lYyk ns.kkjk dks.k".
9. Admittedly, the alleged incident has taken place in
chamber of the present Applicant but the investigation papers
itself shows that at the relevant time the other villagers were
also present there, therefore the incident was not only
witnessed by the witnesses but the wordings were also heard by
various villagers. As far as the ingredients which are required to
attract the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act
of 1989 are concerned, (i) accused person must not be a
6 926.APL.546-2020..JUDGMENT.odt
member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, (ii)
Accused must intentionally insult or intimidate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, (iii) Accused must do so
with the intent to humiliate such a person and (iv) Accused
must do so at any place within pubic view. It is relevant to note
that Section 3(1)(r) of the Act of 1989 is similarly worded as
the previous Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 which was in
force prior to its substitution of the said provision with effect
from 26.01.2016.
10. In the case of Shajan Skaria (supra) the Hon'ble
Apex Court has considered this aspect in detail and observed
that all insults or intimidations to a member of the Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe will not amount to an offence under
the Atrocities Act, unless such insult or intimidation is on the
ground that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe. There is nothing in the transcript of the uploaded video to
indicate even prime facie that those allegations were made by
the appellant only on account of the fact that the complainant
belongs to a Scheduled Caste.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court further clarified in para 60
7 926.APL.546-2020..JUDGMENT.odt
that the various dictum as laid aforesaid is that the offence
under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is not established merely
on the fact that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled 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 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. We say so because the object behind the
enactment of the Act, 1989 was to provide stringent provisions
for punishment of offences which are targeted towards persons
belonging to the SC/ST communities for the reason of their
caste status.
8 926.APL.546-2020..JUDGMENT.odt
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court further interpreted the
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 insult or
intimidation of a member of a SC/ST community will result into
a feeling of caste-based humiliation. It is only in those cases
where the intentional insult or intimidation takes place either
due to the prevailing practice of untouchability or to reinforce
the historically entrenched ideas like the superiority of the
"upper castes" over the "lower castes/untouchables", the
notions of 'purity' and 'pollution', etc. that it could be said to be
an insult or intimidation of the type envisaged by the Act, 1989.
13. In the case of Priti Agarwalla & Ors. (supra) wherein
also by referring the incident of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs.
State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 15947 , wherein it
is observed that:
"17. Requirement of section 3(1)(x) of the old Act is
intentional insult and intimidation with intent to humiliate
the person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe in any place within public view. Messages sent on
whatsapp cannot be said to be an act of intentional insult
or intimidation or an intent to humiliate in public place
9 926.APL.546-2020..JUDGMENT.odt
within public view. As such it is prima facie seen that no
offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is
attracted in the case in hand."
14. It is further observed that, the accusation of
intentionally abusing and humiliating Respondent No. 2 spans
over a period of two years between 2016 and 2018. The
allegation prima facie appears to be an omnibus and ambiguous
allegation. The specific allegation in the complaint on Appellant
No. 2 is that Appellant No. 2 called Respondent No. 2 "chuda",
"chamar", "chakka" and "faggot". The allegation does not refer
to the place nor the public view before whom it was made.
15. In the light of the above observations by the Hon'ble
Apex Court the words with intent to humiliate as they may
appear in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act of 1989 and not every
intentional insult or intimidation of a member of Scheduled
community would result into a feeling of caste based
humiliation.
16. As far as the present case is concerned, it reveals
that there is only a reference to the caste, and therefore, there is
nothing on record at this stage to show that there was an
10 926.APL.546-2020..JUDGMENT.odt
intentional insult or humiliation only because the Applicant
belongs to Scheduled Caste. There is no aspect of untouchability
or any over powering of the higher caste on the lower caste, and
therefore, the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the
Act of 1989 are not fulfilled with.
17. Coming to the another aspect that whether there is
an application of Section 504 or 506 of IPC. Section 504 deals
with, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the
peace.
18. Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code comprises of
the following ingredients, viz., (a) intentional insult, (b) the
insult must be such as to give provocation to the person
insulted, and (c) the accused must intend or know that such
provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to
commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of
such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public
peace or to commit any other offence.
19. We may also indicate that it is not the law that the
actual words or language should figure in the complaint. One
11 926.APL.546-2020..JUDGMENT.odt
has to read the complaint as a whole and, by doing so, if the
Magistrate comes to a conclusion, prima facie, that there has
been an intentional insult so as to provoke any person to break
the public peace or to commit any other offence, that is
sufficient to bring the complaint within the ambit of Section 504
Indian Penal Code.
20. In view of the aforesaid interpretation, the offence
under Section 504 of IPC is also not made out. In view of that,
we inclined to accept the submissions of the learned Counsel for
the Applicant that no prima facie case is made out. In view of
that, the Application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we
proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
i. The Criminal Application is allowed.
ii. The FIR in connection with Crime No.60/2020
registered with Police Station Loni, District Amravati
for the offence punishable under Sections 504 and
506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r)
and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
12 926.APL.546-2020..JUDGMENT.odt
1989 and the consequent proceedings arising out of
the same in Spl. Case No. 181/2024 pending before
the District Judge-5 and Additional Sessions Judge,
Amravati, is hereby quashed and set aside.
21. Rule accordingly. No costs.
22. Fees of the learned Appointed Counsel be quantified
as per rules.
23. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 14/10/2025 18:28:51
