The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, sitting at its Circuit Bench in Kolhapur, has partially quashed a First Information Report filed against two individuals, ruling that the accusations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were not supported by sufficient evidence. In a significant move, the Court underscored that in the absence of corroboration from independent witnesses, criminal charges alleging the use of caste-based slurs cannot be sustained, particularly when the surrounding circumstances of a property dispute suggest the initiation of legal proceedings for ulterior motives.

The case originated from a complaint lodged on November 17, 2021, at the Sangli City Police Station, where the complainant alleged that the petitioners, Nisar Mohammed Pathan and Salim Makbul Mujawar, had demolished a corrugated iron compound wall on property in his possession. The report further alleged that the petitioners had used offensive, caste-based slurs and issued threats. While the investigation led to the filing of a charge sheet before the Sessions Court in Sangli, the petitioners challenged the proceedings, arguing that the allegations were unsubstantiated and part of an ongoing property dispute between the parties.

Disputed Property and FIR Filing

The legal conflict is deeply rooted in a property disagreement. According to the petitioners, the property in question had been purchased by Nisar Mohammed Pathan from the complainant's brother in June 2020. This transaction sparked a series of legal confrontations, including a pending Regular Civil Suit before the local civil court. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the FIR was essentially a tool to influence the civil dispute, pointing out that the petitioners themselves had lodged complaints against the complainant in November 2021, expressing fear of being framed under the Atrocities Act.

The petitioners maintained that the statements recorded by the police were limited to the complainant's immediate family members, including his wife and sons, and lacked any neutral or independent verification. The State of Maharashtra, representing the prosecution, admitted that while the complainant’s family supported the allegations of caste-based abuse, there was no corroborating evidence from any independent third party regarding the use of such slurs.

Evidentiary Gaps and Legal Precedents

In its detailed oral judgment, the Court closely scrutinized the evidentiary record. While it recognized that the incident involved a physical altercation regarding a boundary wall, it found a critical lack of evidence concerning the specific charges under the Atrocities Act. The Court noted that even an independent witness, whose statement was recorded regarding the destruction of the property, did not support the claim that the petitioners had employed caste-based language during the incident.

The Court relied upon the legal principles established in the Supreme Court case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand , which clarifies the requirements for invoking provisions under the Atrocities Act. The High Court emphasized that the mere allegation of verbal abuse is insufficient if the prosecution fails to establish that the incident occurred within "public view." Without independent corroboration, the Court found it impossible to establish a prima facie case for the specific offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Act.

As the Court observed, "No independent witness or members of the public corroborate their statements. None of the independent witnesses stated that they heard that the Petitioners abused Respondent No.2 by using caste-based slurs." Consequently, the Court ruled that continuing the prosecution for these specific charges would constitute an abuse of the legal process .

Judicial Directives on Remaining Criminal Charges

While the Court moved to excise the charges related to the Atrocities Act, it determined that the allegations regarding other offences—specifically Sections 143, 149, 427, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code—remained viable for trial. These sections pertain to unlawful assembly, mischief causing damage, and criminal intimidation. The Court held that the petitioners had not provided sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings in their entirety, as there was enough prima facie material to warrant a trial on the IPC offences.

The judgment stated, "Apart from the above, it further appears that a Civil Suit is pending between the parties in respect of the property in question. Therefore, in my view, it would not be proper to continue proceedings against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act." By limiting the scope of the case to IPC charges, the Court sought to balance the rights of the accused against the necessity of addressing the underlying allegations of property damage and intimidation.

Procedural Transition and Next Steps

The ruling results in the partial allowance of the petition, effectively clearing the accused of the stringent charges under the Atrocities Act. The Sessions Court at Sangli has been directed to take the necessary steps to reassign the case to the appropriate lower court that possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the remaining IPC offences.

Justice Abhay J. Mantri clarified that the observations made in the order are strictly preliminary and intended only to resolve the current application for quashing. These findings are not intended to influence the outcome of the impending trial, nor are they meant to prejudice the parties as the case proceeds on its merits. The Trial Court has been instructed to proceed with the case based on the evidence presented during the trial, ensuring that justice is administered without being swayed by the earlier procedural determinations.

Following the quashing of the Atrocities Act counts, the legal fees for the court-appointed counsel representing the complainant, who was appointed through the Legal Services Authority, will be determined according to the prevailing rules. With the case now narrowed to the remaining IPC charges, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners will continue, marking the end of this phase of the litigation.