SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 264

MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, H.L.DATTU, ARIJIT PASAYAT
Ashabai Machindra Adhagale – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


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 th





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top