The FIR under the Atrocities Act was quashed due to lack of essential elements, including public view and caste identification.

ORDER :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being No.II-C.R.No.244 of 2019 registered with Kamlabag Police Station for the offences under Sections 323, 504 of IPC read with section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocities Act”) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Dagli does not press the present petition insofar as offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 of IPC are concerned, but he press this petition only qua offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(R)(S) of the Atrocities Act.

3. Referring to the FIR, learned advocate Mr.Dagli would submit that the alleged offence did not take place within public domain. He would further submit that according to FIR, the incident took place within the office of the accused and therefore, there is clear bar of Section 3(1)(10) of Atrocities Act are attracted in the present case. He would further submit that on plain reading of FIR, it does not indicate that the first informant has mentioned in FIR that he belongs to a particular caste i.e. Scheduled Caster or Scheduled Tribe and having knowledge of the same, the accused has abused him and insulted him for the caste. Therefore, since ingredients of offence under Section 3(1) (R)(S) of the Atrocities Act are not satisfied, the offence may be quashed. Learned advocate Mr.Dagli referred to the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Sandip @ Sanjay @ Tako Chhaganbhai Ughreja vs. State of Gujarat and another, being Criminal Misc. Application No.15188 of 2014. Upon above submissions, he would submit to quash the FIR as far as offence under the Atrocities Act are concerned.

4. On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent State offence took place within the domain and it satisfies the ingredients of Section 3(1)(10) of Atrocities Act. Therefore, he submits to dismiss this petition even qua offences under the Atrocities Act.

5. I have heard learned advocates for both sides.

6. On 17.09.2019, the following order was passed :

“1. Learned advocate for the applicant does not press present application qua the offences under IPC.

2. Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 obliges the complainant in opening recital, to plead the case that the accused is not the member of the SC/ST caste. No such plea is taken in the FIR itself and, therefore, amended provisions of section 18 of the said Act would not come into play in the present proceedings in view of decision in case Georige Pentaiah V. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2008(12) SCC 531. Therefore, present application deserves consideration.

3. Issue Notice returnable on 09.01.2020. Learned APP wavies service of notice on behalf of respondent State. Meanwhile, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant. Direct service for respondent no.2 through concerned police station is permitted.”

7. Let me refer the necessary contents of the FIR which reads as under :

“It is alleged in the FIR by respondent no.2 – complainant that before 10 months, he had taken amount of Rs.150,000/- from Moon Finance belonging to present applicant. It is stated that stamp paper writing was also executed and it was agreed to deposit the amount on monthly installment of Rs.13,000/- pm. It is stated that for about 8 months, installments were paid regularly, however, last month installment was not paid on account of financial crunch. It is stated that as he requested Rajubhai for some settlement, however, on this it is alleged that threat was given and abusive words were used against caste of the complainant. It is stated that eve