Prakash Suresh Dhote vs State Of Mah, Thr. P.So. Gadge Nagar, ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2229 Bom

Bombay High Court

Prakash Suresh Dhote vs State Of Mah, Thr. P.So. Gadge Nagar, ... on 27 February, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:3849-DB




              Judgment

                                                                    1 apl361.19

                                             1

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

                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.361 OF 2019

              1. Prakash s/o Suresh Dhote,
              aged 33 years, occupation:
              agriculturist.

              2. Deepali w/o Prakash Dhote,
              aged 31 years, occupation:
              household.

              Both residents of flat No.308,
              Malviya Residency, Panchasheel
              Chowk, Tapovan Road, Amravati.      ..... Applicants.

                                   :: V E R S U S ::

              1. State of Maharashtra,
              through PSO Gadge Nagar,
              Amravati.

              2. Payal w/o Pradeeprao
              Mohod, aged about 30 years,
              occupation: household, r/o flat No.
              307, Malviya Residency,
              Panchasheel Chowk, Tapovan
              Road, Amravati.               ..... Non-applicants.
              ================================
              Shri M.V.Rai, Counsel for Applicants.
              Shri A.M.Joshi, APP for NA No.1/State.
              ================================
              CORAM      : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
              DATE       : 27/02/2026

                                                                       .....2/-
 Judgment

                                                           1 apl361.19

                                 2

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent.

2. By this application, applicants are seeking quashing of

FIR in connection with Crime No.332/2019 registered with

the non-applicant No.1 police station for offences under

Sections 294, 354, 504, and 506(2) read with 34 of the IPC

and under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989.

3. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged

by non-applicant No.2 (the complainant) on allegations that

on 22.3.2019, at about 11:00 am, applicant No.1 Prakash

came near to her flat and enquired who has thrown colour

and abused her in a filthy language as well as on her caste by

saying, ".......... vkjksihrkauh fQ;kZnh yk fNuky] jkaM v'kh vf'yy

f'kohxkG d#u] egkjs gks dks.kR;k rqEgh tkrhps vkgkr gs ekghr vkgs vls

Eg.kwu fQ;kZnhyk /kDdk nsowu fQ;kZnh ps dsl vks<ys o fQ;kZnhyk ftos

ekj.;kph /kedh fnyh----------"

.....3/-

Judgment

1 apl361.19

On the basis of the said report, the police have

registered the crime against applicants.

4. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that even

accepting allegations as it is, mere reference of caste is not

sufficient to attract offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the

Atrocities Act.

He submitted that even accepting the allegation that

applicant No.1 has abused in a filthy language, mere abuses

are not sufficient to attract offence under Section 294 of the

IPC.

The offences under Sections 354, 504, and 506 of the

IPC are also not made out.

As far as offence under Section 323 of the IPC is

concerned, which is non-compoundable offence and in view

of Section 155 of the CrPC, the police have to obtain

permission and, thereafter, investigate the same.

.....4/-

Judgment

1 apl361.19

In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned APP for the APP strongly opposed

the said contentions and submitted that mobile verification

panchanama discloses that there was altercation of words.

Thus, recital of the FIR is substantiated by the mobile

verification panchanama. In view of that, the application

deserves to be rejected.

6. On hearing both sides and perusing the entire

investigation papers, it shows that it is alleged that the

applicants have abused the complainant on her caste. The

basic ingredients to constitute offence under Section 3(1)(r)

of the Prevention of Atrocities Act are; (a) accused person

must not be a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled

Tribe; (b) accused must intentionally insult or intimidate a

member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; (c)

accused must do so with the intent to humiliate such a

.....5/-

Judgment

1 apl361.19

person; and (d) accused must do so at any place within

public view.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal

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

anr) decided on 23.8.2024, 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 further been held that 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,

.....6/-

Judgment

1 apl361.19

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 is further observed that, "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.

While interpreting the meaning of expression "intent

to humiliate", the Hon'ble Apex Court 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

insult or intimidation of a member of a SC/ST community

will result into a feeling of caste-based humiliation. It is

.....7/-

Judgment

1 apl361.19

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."

8. By applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court to the facts of the present case, admittedly, there is

nothing on record to show that with an intent to humiliate,

the said said words are expressed. Merely because the

complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste is not sufficient

to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Atrocities

Act .

9. Coming to the allegation regarding obscene act on

the part of applicants, Section 294 of the IPC talks about

obscene acts and songs. The said Section is reproduced as

under for reference:

.....8/-

Judgment

1 apl361.19

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.

This aspect is considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of Om Prakash Ambadkar vs. State of

Maharashtra, reported in MANU/SC/0134/2025 wherein it

is observed that It has to be noted that in the instance case,

the absence of words which will involve some lascivious

elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words

cannot attract the offence under Section 294(b). None of

the records disclose the alleged words used by the accused.

It may not be the requirement of law to reproduce in all

cases the entire obscene words if it is lengthy, but in the

instant case, there is hardly anything on record. Mere

.....9/-

Judgment

1 apl361.19

abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot

attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC".

It is further observed that "mere utterance of obscene

words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to

establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is

lacking in the case".

10. In the present case, there is nothing on record to

show that the words have caused any annoyance to others.

Therefore, the offence under section 294 of the IPC is also

not made out.

11. It is alleged that applicant No.1 has outraged

modesty of the complainant.

To attract the offence under Section 354 of the IPC, it

deals with assault on using criminal force to any woman

intending to outrage her modesty or knowing it to be likely

that he will thereby outrage her modesty shall be punished

with imprisonment upto one year but which may extend to

.....10/-

Judgment

1 apl361.19

five years and shall also be liable for both. Whoever assaults

or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage

or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her

modesty, the offence is attracted.

12. As far as the allegations are concerned, it nowhere

shows that with an intention to outrage her modesty,

applicant No.1 has pulled her hair and, therefore, the

offence under Section 354 of the IPC is also not made out.

13. Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC are concerned,

within definition of criminal intimidation, admittedly,

ingredients of the said Sections are not made out and,

therefore, the offences under Sections 504 and 506 are also

not made out in the present case.

14. As far as offence under Section 323 of the IPC is

concerned, it is non-cognizable offence and, therefore, the

police have to obtain permission from the Magistrate and,

thereafter, take further action.

.....11/-

Judgment

1 apl361.19

15. The law relating to quashing of FIRs was 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;

(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;

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected

.....12/-

Judgment

1 apl361.19

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 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

.....13/-

Judgment

1 apl361.19

concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(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."

16. In this view of the matter, the application deserves to

be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:

ORDER

(1) The Criminal Application is allowed.

(2) FIR in connection with Crime No.332/2019 registered

with the non-applicant No.1 police station for offences under

Sections 294, 354, 504, and 506(2) read with 34 of the IPC

and under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of

.....14/-

Judgment

1 apl361.19

present applicants Prakash s/o Suresh Dhote and Deepali w/o

Prakash Dhote.

(3) For the offence under Section 323 of the IPC, the

investigating officer shall take recourse under Section 155 of

the CrPC.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

!! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 09/03/2026 10:36:08