Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MANOHAR s/o MARTANDRAO KULKARNI
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Decided Date: 04/08/05
Section 3 - Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974), Chapter XII, Section 154 - Registration of crime under Atrocities Act, 1989. - If caste of complainant or accused is not mentioned in body of FIR, a crime under Atrocities Act cannot be registered. - Where the caste of the complainant and/or the accused is not contained in the body of the FIR there can be no registration of a crime under the Atrocities Act and all investigations and further Court proceedings on the basis of such FIR cannot be maintained in law. Such First Information Reports and Court proceedings on the basis of crimes registered on the basis of such First Information Reports will, therefore, have to be quashed and set aside.
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3 - Maintainability of complaint - Caste of complainant not indicated - Neither FIR nor complaint are according to applicable laws - These cannot be maintained - Process issued is liable to be quashed. - In several cases, there was a complaint as regards other offences under the Indian Penal Code, such as assault, molestation, rape etc. That some of these offences were bailable and in some cases non-bailable offences under the Indian Penal Code were also involved. In certain other cases offence under Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 was also alleged. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 is concerned, a Single Judge of this Court (R.M.S. Khandeparker, J.) has held that the lacuna in no mentioning the caste of the complainant in the FIR would be fatal. This logic would, however, not extend in cases under the same Act where the caste of the accused was not mentioned as any person can be guilty of an offence under the said Act. The registration of the offence/offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code suffers from no lacuna. Court to give certain clarifications in this regard hereinafter. The registration of the crime by the police in all the aforesaid matters under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 or the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (where applied and only where the caste of the complainant is not given in the body of the FIR) and the consequent investigation and prosecution of the offences under the Atrocities Act or the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (where applied and where the caste of the complainant is not given in the body of the FIR), was not in accordance with law and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
( 1 ) THE aforesaid group of 59 matters has been clubbed together because they involve a common question of law, which is no longer res integra and since they can all be decided and disposed of on the basis of the said question of law. All the matters pertain to the quashing of an f. I. R. /investigation/proceedings under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act for the sake of brevity ). In all the aforesaid matters either rule or notices have been issued on the footing that the matters would be decided finally at the stage of admission, such notices having been served upon the respondents. In such of the matters that Rule has not been issued. Rule is now issued and the same is made returnable forthwith by consent. All the matters are, therefore, being disposed of finally on a point of law by this judgment and order.
( 2 ) IN applications being Criminal Application Nos. 786/1996, 788/1996, 805/1996, 809/1996, 869/1996, 1344/199, 1406/1996, 1574/1996, 1654/1996, 1878/1996, 266/1997, 1053/1999, 1785/1999, 2161/1999, 1390/2001, 9/2003, 1693/2003, 2029/2003, 387/2004,1012/2004, 118/2005, 147/2005, 781/2005, 782/2005 and 1415/2005, the police registered an offence under the Atrocities act against the accused even though in the body of the First Information Report, the caste of the accused was not mentioned.
( 3 ) IN the remaining applications being Criminal Application Nos. 798/1996, 799/1996, 800/1996, 812/1996, 814/1996, 1200/1996, 1257/1996, 1318/1996, 1407/1996, 1682/1996, 1624/1996, 1826/1996, 1936/1996, 965/1997, 1056/1998, 1807/1998, 1877/1998, 525/1999, 1160/1999, 1980/1999, 1847/2000, 2227/2001, 1169/2002, 1834/2002, 261/2003, 513/2003, 141/2004, 444/2004, 623/2004, 1264/2004, 1435/2004, 1637/2004, 2093/2004, 1206/2005 and 1423/2005, the police registered an offence under the Atrocities Act against the accused even though in the body of the first information report the caste of the complainant was not mentioned.
( 4 ) A Division Bench of this Court (V. K. Barde and A. P. Deshpande, JJ.), in the case of Anant Vasantlal Sambre vs. State of Maharashtra, delivered a judgment on 20-4-2001 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 49 of 2001, in which a view was taken that if the First Information Report does not contain an averment that the accused does not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the offence under section 3 of the Atrocities Act cannot be registered. In the case before the Division Bench, the complainant had alleged that one Shri Kailash gorantyal, who was a sitting M. L. A. , committed an offence punishable under the provisions of the Atrocities Act, but though a report in that regard was made to the Sadar Bazar Police Station at Jalna, the police did not investigate into the matter. In that case, the Police-Sub-Inspector, Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jalna had filed an affidavit-in-reply, wherein he admitted that such a First Information report was received at the police station on 15-1-2001. He, however, contended that though the enquiry was made on the receipt of the report, no crime was registered on the basis of that report. Further, the complainant in that case, had along with his First Information Report, had filed his caste certificate, indicating that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste (Hindu Khatik ). However, in the First information Report there was no mention that the person against whom the complaint was made viz. Shri Kailash Gorantyal, did not belong to Scheduled caste or Scheduled Tribe. In paragraph No. 6 of the judgment, the Division bench observed as under : "06. The report, which is filed by the petitioner at the police station, mentions that the petitioner belongs to Hindu Khatik caste, which is a scheduled Caste. However, in the report, it is nowhere mentioned that the person against whom the complaint is made, viz. , Shri Kailash gorantyal, does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Sched
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
