IMPORTANT POINT
1. FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia. Whether the accused belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe can be gone into when the matter is being investigated.
2. Powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(xi) – First Information Report filed by appellant alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC and ST Act, 1989 – Petition there against under Section 482 of Code filed by respondent.3 contending that since in FIR caste of accused was not mentioned proceedings could not be continued and deserved to be quashed – High Court placing reliance on earlier decisions of High Court allowed petition – Appeal – Plea of appellant that non-mention of caste of accused cannot be a ground to quash proceedings – Held that FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia – Whether the accused belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe can be gone into when the matter is being investigated – After ascertaining facts during course of investigation it is open to investigating officer to record that accused either belongs to or does not belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe – After final opinion is formed, it is open to the Court to either accept the same or take cognizance – Even if the charge sheet is filed at the time of consideration of the charge, it is open to the accused to bring to the notice of the Court that the materials do not show that accused does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe – Even if charge is framed at the time of trial materials can be placed to show that accused either belongs or does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe – Appeal allowed. (Paras 13 to 18)
        Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Scope and ambit – Powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise – Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles – The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution – The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. (Para 13)
       Facts of the Case :
        1. A First Information Report was filed by appellant herein in the instant case alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC and ST Act, 1989.Petition there against under Section 482 of Code was filed by respondent.3 contending that since in FIR caste of accused was not mentioned proceedings could not be continued and deserved to be quashed. High Court placing reliance on earlier decisions of High Court allowed petition.
        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court. Plea of appellant that non-mention of caste of accused cannot be a ground to quash proceedings.
       Findings of the Court :
        FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia. Whether the accused belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe can be gone into when the matter is being investigated. After ascertaining facts during course of investigation it is open to investigating officer to record that accused either belongs to or does not belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. After final opinion is formed, it is open to the Court to either accept the same or take cognizance. Even if the charge sheet is filed at the time of consideration of the charge, it is open to the accused to bring to the notice of the Court that the materials do not show that accused does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Even if charge is framed at the time of trial materials can be placed to show that accused either belongs or does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. An interesting question of law arises in this appeal. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Appellant filed First Information Report (in short the ‘FIR’) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’) at Newasa Police Station, District Ahmednagar, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the ‘Act’). A petition under Section 482 of Code was filed by respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’). The basic stand was that in the FIR the caste of accused was not mentioned and therefore the proceedings cannot be continued and deserved to be quashed. The High Court placing reliance on earlier decisions of the High Court allowed the petition.

3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view taken by the Bombay High Court is contrary to one taken by the Orissa High Court. It is submitted that the offence primarily relates to purported perpetration of crime on the victim because of his or her caste. It is for the accused to show that he does not belong to higher caste and that is a matter of evidence. It is not that in the instant case there was no reference to the caste of an accused as it is clearly mentioned in the FIR that the offence is relatable to Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act. Therefore, there is a reference though indirectly to the caste of the accused. Even otherwise it is submitted that the non-mention of the caste of the accused cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. At the framing of charge or in case the charge sheet is filed and/or during trial the accused can establish that he does not belong to higher caste. It is submitted that FIR is not an encyclopedia of all events and basic ingredients of offence are clearly made out.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, submitted that Section 3(1) itself provides that the offence should have been committed by a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, unless that specific mention is made no offence is disclosed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to various judgments of Bombay High Court in this regard supporting his stand. e.g. Manohar S/o Martandrao Kulkarni and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.1 (2005 (4) Mh.L.J. 588).

6. It is also submitted that the complainant i.e. the appellant is harassing people by filing frivolous petitions taking shelter of the fact that she belongs to scheduled caste. Therefore, placing strong reliance on the observations of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2 (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), it is submitted that the proceedings deserved to be quashed which according to him the High Court rightly did.

7. In Superintendent of Police, CBI and Ors. v. Tapan Kumar Singh3 (2003 (6) SCC 175) this Court elaborately dealt with the need of an FIR. It was inter-alia observed as follows:

“20. It is well settled that a first information report is not an encyclopaedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. An informant may lodge a report about the commission of an offence though he may not know the name of the victim or his assailant. He may not even know how the occurrence took place. A first informant need not necessarily be an eyewitness so as to be able to disclose in great detail all aspects of the offence committed. What is of significance is that the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the information so lodged must provide a basis for the police officer to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. At this stage it is enough if the police officer on the basis of the information given suspects the commission of a cognizable offence, and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed. If he has reasons to s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 264

2009(1) Supreme 732SUPREME COURT OF INDIADr. Arijit Pasayat, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and H.L. Dattu, JJ.Ashabai Machindra Adhagale — AppellantversusState of Maharashtra and Ors. — RespondentsCriminal Appeal No. 287 of 2009(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 838 of 2007)Decided on : 12-02-2009

Cases Referred (8)