The court quashed the FIR and proceedings under the Atrocities Act, finding no prima facie case against the applicant and emphasizing the need to prevent abuse of legal processes.

ORDER :

SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

1. Present application has been filed initially for quashing First Information Report vide Crime No.89/2019 dated 14.08.2019 registered with Police Station, Daulatabad, Dist. Aurangabad and by way of amendment for quashing proceedings in Special Case No.52/2020 pending before learned Special Judge, under the S.C. & S.T. Act, Aurangabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 298, 505, 505(2), 506, 507 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(u), (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocities Act”).

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.S. Varma holding for learned Advocate Mr. S.S. Ladda for applicant, learned APP Mr. S.A. Gaikwad for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. P.B. Waghmare for respondent No.2.

3. Learned Advocate for applicant has taken us through First Information Report and entire charge sheet. The main contention at the initial stage before the amendment was that in First Information Report respondent No.2 has given his caste/religion as ‘Navbauddha’ and for that purpose he has annexed the list of Castes and Tribes in Maharashtra that is as per the constitutional amendment and submits that there is no such religion or caste which has been held to be a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and, therefore, the offence was initially not registered under the Atrocities Act and later on during the course of investigation a supplementary statement of informant has been recorded on 18.10.2019, wherein he has stated that as he had no caste certificate at the time of lodging of First Information Report, he had mentioned as ‘Navbauddha’, but, now, he has certificate issued by Sub Divisional Officer, Collector Office, Aurangabad, which shows that he is a member of a Scheduled Caste and, therefore, he has produced it. Thereupon, sections from the Atrocities Act have been added. Thus, there is total suppression of facts when the First Information Report was lodged. There was no question of addition of sections under the Atrocities Act after the registration of First Information Report.

4. Learned Advocate for applicant further submits that in First Information Report itself it is clarified by informant himself that after he saw the procession on the occasion of Lord Parshuram Jayanti on 08.05.2019, he had given some post on his Facebook and WhatsApp. He states that it was his personal opinion, to which he received good as well as bad comments. That means, he had instigated the other persons to react. The alleged phone call from the cell number on his mobile was received around 11.04 p.m. on 09.05.2019. It was in relation to his Facebook post and then according to him, abuses were given and then he says that there is defamation of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar in whatever was the dialogue from the said caller. The said caller was not known to respondent No.2. He has given only cell number and, therefore, First Information Report was also against the caller from that cell number. Now, in the investigation the prosecution is relying on the statement of father of present applicant, who has stated that present applicant is using two sim cards and one is the said number from which the informant alleged to have received phone call. Similar is the statement of other two persons i.e. witness Sachin Shelke and Shashank Jaiswal, who are stated to be the friends of applicant. Call records are not fetched and service provider shows that said number/sim card number is in the name of one Vinayak Sudarshan. There is no statement of said Vinayak Sudarshan. Now, police also want to rely on a consent letter signed by applicant stating that he had given a phone call to informant and, therefore, then his voice sample has been taken. Before the report of Voice Analyst is received, the charge sheet is filed. The said consent letter cannot be used as confession. Therefore, the charge sheet which is filed without