Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SHRI R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, & SHRI A.A. SAYED, JJ.
Ms. Sarita Shyam Dake – Petitioner.
vs.
Sr. Police Inspector, Mumbai and others - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 1746 OF 2004
Decided on: 4th DECEMBER, 2007
Section 3(x) of the Atrocities Act provides that “whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but it may extend to five years and with fine”. The provision of law comprised in Section 3(1)(x) of The Atrocities Act clearly requires that an act of insult or intimidation to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste should be in any place within a public view. In other words, in order that an act of insult or intimidate with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe should warrant proceedings under the Atrocities Act under the said provision of law, such act must have been committed in a place which is situated within a public view. It means the act should be visible and audible to a third party. If such an act takes place in a closed premises and not in presence of a third person, then such act cannot be said to be either visible or audible to public. [Para 7]
(b) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3 (1) (x)--Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, Section 482---Quashing of F.I.R.--Allegation that petitioner uttering words "Khalchya nich jaticha" with reference to complainant in the office premises-Complainant not making any reference that act of humiliation on the ground of caste was taken place in presence of any third person-FI.R.quashed by holding that incidence could not be said to be taken place in public view.
Section 7(1)(c) of The Civil Rights Act provides that whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, incites or encourages any person or class of persons or the public generally to practice “untouchability” in any form whatsoever shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than one month and not more than six months, and also with fine which shall be not less than one hundred rupees and not more than five hundred rupees.
Section 7(1)(d) of the Civil Rights Act provides that “whoever insults or attempts to insult, on the ground of “untouchability”, a member of a Scheduled Caste shall be punishable in the same manner as in case of offence under Section 7(1)(c) of Civil Rights Act”. Explanation II of the said Section (7) provides that for the purpose of clause (c) a person shall be deemed to incite or encourage the practice of untouchability, if he, directly or indirectly, preaches untouchability or its practice in any form; or if he justifies, whether on historical, philosophical or religious grounds or on the ground of any tradition of the caste system or on any other ground, the practice of untouchability in any form.
On plain reading of Section 7(1)(c) of the Civil Rights Act, it discloses that the offence under the said provision can be said to have been committed when a person incites or encourages any other person or class of persons or the public generally to practice “untouchability”. Merely because somebody is insulted by referring to his caste or otherwise, it cannot be said to constitute an offence under Section 7(1)(c) of The Civil Rights Act. [Para 8]
(c) Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, Section 7 (1) (c) and (d)--Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 Section 482--Practising "untouchability"--Quashing of F.I.R.--Petitioner uttering words "Khalchya jaticha" with reference to complainant without making reference of untouchability--F.I.R. quashed for want of essential ingredients. [Para 15]
SHRI R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.
1. Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner, the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 as well as the Respondent nos.2 and 4. None present for other Respondents, though served.
2. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings initiated consequent to the C.R. No.2105 of 2004 registered at MRA Marg Police Station, Mumbai under Section 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called as " the Atrocities Act") read with 7(1)(c) & (d) of The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as "the Civil Rights Act") on the ground that the complaint on the face of it nowhere discloses any offence either under the Atrocities Act or under the Civil Rights Act.
3. The Petitioner and the Respondent NO. 5 who is the original complainant are in employment of the Respondent No.2. The Petitioner is the Peon and the Respondent No.5 is a Draughtsman. On 3rd August 2004, a complaint dated 22nd July 2004 came to be lodged at MRA Marg Police Station, Mumbai which came to be registered as F.I.R.2105 of 2004 dated 3rd August 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities act and Section 7(1)(c)(d) of the Civil Rights Act. Pursuant to the complaint, certain statements came to be recorded by the Police authorities during the course of the investigation.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that inspite of various statements recorded by the Police authorities, no material could be collected during the course of investigation and the Respondent No. 5 was seeking to exert pressure through politicians and some other influential persons to harass the petitioner and that therefore the Petitioner has been compelled to approach to this Court in writ jurisdiction to quash the said F.I.R. and the proceedings arising therefrom. It is also the case of the Petitioner that even the Naval authorities i.e. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 have enquired into the matter and have found the complaint of the Respondent no. 5 to be without any substance and even have submitted the report dated 18th August 2004 to that effect MRA Marg Police station. It is further the case of the Petitioner that the allegations disclosed in the complaint nowhere reveal any case for proceeding against the Petitioner under any of the provisions of the said Acts. Therefore, the F.I.R. and the proceedings consequent to the said F.I.R. should be quashed. The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner drawing our attention to the complaint and the relevant provisions of law submitted that the complaint nowhere reveals necessary ingredients of the provisions of law under which the Petitioner is sought to be prosecuted and the investigation is to be conducted. As the complaint does not disclose the ingredients of any of those provisions of law, the impugned F.I.R. and the proceedings should be quashed.
5. Learned APP appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 3 on the other hand submitted that the complainant is a member of the Scheduled Caste and on account of words uttered by the Petitioner as alleged in the complaint, the respondents had no option than to register the F.I.R. and to conduct the investigation in the matter. Learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 and 4 however, submitted that Naval authorities having enquired into the matter could not find any substance in the complaint and submitted their report to the MRA Marg Police Station under their letter dated 17th August 2004.
6. Perusal of the complaint dated 9/12/2003 based on which the impugned F.I.R. has been registered undoubtedly discloses that the Respondent - complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste. The specific allegation against the petitioner in the complaint is to the effect that on 30th July 2002 at about 9.30 am. while the Petitioner and the Respondent No.5 were in their off
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
