The main legal point established in the judgment is that the essential ingredients of the offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, including intentional insult or intimidation with the intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled caste or tribe, must be met for the charges to be sustained.

JUDGMENT

1. With consent, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. This is an application under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the first information report No. 0304 of 2021 registered at Udgir City Police Station, Udgir, Dist. Latur and Special Case No. 16 of 2021 pending before the Ld. District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, Dist. Latur for the offences punishable under Ss. 448, 504, 506 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC and under Ss. 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3 (1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the respondent/State and learned counsel for respondent No. 2. We have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties.

4. The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant the first information report lodged by the respondent No.2- Gautam Bhagwan Somwanshi, who he is a member of scheduled caste. The allegations in the first information report are that his cousin Annasaheb Maloji Banshelkikar had permitted him to use one shop, which was purchased from Somwanshi builder. On 18/10/2021 at about 1.30 pm his friend Arun Ujedkar informed him that the shutter of the office was partly open and some persons were seen sitting inside the said office. The respondent No. 2 and two others went to the office and noticed four persons including the applicant herein sitting in the said office. When he questioned the applicant as to why he had open the lock, the applicant abused and humiliated him with reference to his caste. He, therefore, lodged the first information report pursuant to which the aforestated crime has been registered.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is civil dispute between the co-accused and Somwanshi builder and that the Civil Court has granted interim relief in favour of the co-accused in respect of the said office. He submitted that the applicant herein who is a lawyer by professor is representing the co-accused in the said civil proceeding. It is sought to be contended that the FIR has been lodged against the applicant only as personal vendata, for representing the coaccused in the said civil proceedings. It is further submitted that the alleged incident was not within public view. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttarakhand and another in Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 2020 decided on 5/11/2020 and learned single Judge of this Court in Balu B. Galande Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2006 All MR (Cri) 3197, it is submitted that the first information report as well as the other material collected in the course of the investigation and which form part of the charge-sheet, even if accepted in the entirety, do not disclose cognizable offence as against the applicant. Hence this is a fit case to exercise discretion under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent an abuse of the process of court.

6. Per contra learned AGP and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that the allegations in the first information report as well as the the statements of witnesses who were present along with respondent No.2 prima faice indicate that the applicant herein had abused the responded No.2 with reference to his caste. It is submitted that though the incident occurred inside the office, the said shop is abutting the road and is visible to the public. It is stated that the abuses were also hurled in presence of witnesses and this would attract the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh & Ors. Vs. State through Standing Counsel & Ors reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435.

7. Sec. 3(1)(g) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act prescribes punishment for wrongful dispossession of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Trib