The essential elements for offences under the Atrocities Act include intentional insult in public view and specific allegations regarding caste status, which were not met in this case.

ORDER :

(J. C. DOSHI, J.)

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of rule for respondent No.1 – State and learned advocate Ms.Nishita Prajapati waives service of rule for respondent No.2.

2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Bomi Sethna submits that qua petitioner No.2, the petition has been disposed of as not pressed as per order of coordinate Bench of this Court dated 20.12.2018. He would also submit that petitioner No.1 is not pressing the present petition for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(2), 341, 427 and 114 of IPC and said fact is also recorded vide order dated 20.12.2018. Thus, the petitioner No.1 is pressing this petition only qua offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(w)(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocities Act”).

3. After reading the FIR, learned advocate Mr.Sethna would submit that since specific word which is said to be derogatory to the first informant on lowering her being member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not spoken within public view or intentionally to meet the essential requirement of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) of the Atrocities Act. Secondly, he would submit that Section 3(1)(w)(2) of the Atrocities Act would attract if accused acts or shows gestures of sexual nature towards the woman belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, upon reading entire FIR, it does not disclose that offence under Sections 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(w)(2) are committed. He would further submit that on plain reading of FIR, it does not indicate that the first informant has mentioned in FIR that she belongs to a particular caste i.e. Scheduled Caster or Scheduled Tribe and having knowledge of the same, the accused has abused her and insulted her for the caste. Therefore, since ingredients of offence under Section 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(w)(2) of the Atrocities Act are not satisfied, the offence may be quashed. Learned advocate 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 advocate Ms.Nishita Prajapati appearing for the first informant fervently objected to relief claimed by the petitioner No.1 on the submission that specific words are spoken outside the house of the first informant which attracts the offence at least under Section 3(1)(r) of Atrocities Ac. Such words were spoken to insult or intimidate the first informant with intent to humiliate her as she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Upon above submissions, she would submit to dismiss this petition even qua offences under the Atrocities Act.

5. Learned APP Mr.Rohan Raval appearing for the respondent State in the given facts and circumstances submits to pass necessary orders.

6. I have heard learned advocates for both sides and perused the record.

7. On 11.01.2019, the coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order :

“1. This Court has passed the following order dated 20.12.2018 :-

“1.This is an application seeking quashment of the first information report being IIC. R.No.3274 of 2018 registered with Sola Police Station, Ahmedabad dated 24.11.2018. So far as the applicant No.2 is concerned, he is already arrested. Learned advocate does not press this petition qua him. So far as the petitioner No.1 is concerned, he has no other criminal antecedent.

2. Learned advocate has been able to point out to this Court that the first information report does not reveal the attraction of Section 3 (1)(W)(ii) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 as there are no allegations of any sexual overture so far as this petitioner is concerned. He has further submitted that whether the hurling of abuses was in the public or not that the matter of investigation. Therefore, Section 3(1)(R) of the Indian Penal Code also be not attracted at this stage protecting the applicant No.1 under the provisions