FIR under SC/ST Act quashed absent caste-based insult, humiliation intent linked to caste, or cognizable offence ingredients; prior similar vexatious complaints indicate abuse of process for revenge.

JUDGMENT :

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

1. This proceeding is recorded in accordance with the decision of this Court in Hema Suresh Ahuja & Ors v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2024) SCC OnLine Bom 784 as the subject matter pertains to an offence under the SC/ST Act.

2. Heard Mr. Virendranath Tiwari, Petitioner in person, Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for the Respondent – State, and Mr. Rizwan Merchant, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

3. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, together with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the Petitioner to quash the FIR bearing No. 121 of 2010 registered at Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai (hereafter “impugned FIR”) for offences punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter “Atrocities Act, 1989"), along with the Chargesheet bearing No. 237/PW/2014 pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37^th Court, at Esplanade, Mumbai (hereafter “Magistrate”), arising from the impugned FIR.

4. The Respondent No. 2 filed a statement dated 02.07.2010 with the Respondent No. 1, alleging that on 27.06.2007, at around 11:30 a.m., in Siddharth Law College, when the Respondent No. 2 was coming down from the lift, the Petitioner hurled abuses at her and claimed that she possessed bogus certificates. The Respondent No. 2 further alleged that a conversation with the Petitioner led to an altercation during which the Petitioner assaulted her with an umbrella, causing injuries to Respondent No. 2. The impugned FIR was registered based on the said statement.

5. The investigation was completed, and the Chargesheet bearing No. 237/PW/2014 was filed before the Magistrate under under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the Atrocities Act, 1989.

6. On 29.09.2010, this Court directed that no precipitous steps be taken against the Petitioner. On 11.02.2011, Rule was issued in the matter, and the earlier interim order was extended until the disposal of this Petition.

7. The Petitioner, party in person, states that he raised an issue regarding Respondent No. 2's claim to a reserved seat, which Respondent No. 2 was not entitled to, leading Respondent No. 2 to file false and malicious complaints against him. He refers to the memo of the Petition and states that Respondent No. 2 filed successive criminal complaints under the Atrocities Act, 1989, against him. These complaints were registered as SC/ST Special Case No. 2 of 2003 and SC/ST Special Case No. 09 of 2007 before the Special Judge, Mumbai. He submits that by order dated 16.09.2005, the Special Judge, Mumbai, acquitted him of the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, 1989, in SC/ST Special Case No. 2 of 2003, and by order dated 25.03.2010, he was discharged in SC/ST Special Case No. 09 of 2007 of the offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (ix). He further states that the present petition concerns the third complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 on similar grounds, misusing the provisions of the Atrocities Act, 1989. He argues that the statement filed by Respondent No. 2, besides being false, is motivated by ulterior motives and revenge, as the Petitioner questioned the qualification and ce