Prosecution under SC & ST (Atrocities) Act is liable to be quashed if caste of the complainant or the accused is not mentioned in the complaint

1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of parties.

2. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed for quashing the F.I.R. lodged by respondent No. 2, 3. The Petitioner is an Editor of a Daily News Paper known as “Deshonnati”, while respondent No. 2 is said to be a Press Reporter. It is alleged that on 4-6-2007, the respondent No. 2-the complainant had gone to the office of Daily Deshonnati in order to hand over the news items. Some other news Reporters were also present there. At that time, it is alleged, that the applicant who is an accused was sitting in his cabin, while the complainant was about to leave the office. It is alleged that he was called by the peon of the applicant/accused. When he came inside, it is alleged that, he was abused by the applicant/accused on the basis of his caste. At that time, it is also further alleged that, one Ajay Bhujade and Naresh Deshmukh were sitting in the chamber. Respondent No. 2 thereafter lodged report with the police on 7-6-2007. Accordingly the police registered an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act. The applicant apprehends arrest on account of registration of such offence and he seeks to quash the F.I.R.

I have heard Mr. Patil, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. D.B. Thakre, A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Wathore, Advocate for the respondent No. 2.

3. The learned Counsel for the applicant contended before me that the First Information Report lodged by respondent No. 2- complainant does not disclose the caste of the offender i.e. the accused/applicant and therefore on this ground alone F.I.R. as far as offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, is liable to be struck down.

4. Learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 2 on the other hand submitted that the complaint has essentially been filed under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and, therefore, it cannot be struck down as is argued by the learned counsel. The learned Counsel for the applicant had relied on a decision of this Court reported in MANU/MH/0877/2005 : 2005(4)MhLj588 , Manohar Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra. This Court has made the following observations.

It is a precondition that person committing the alleged offence must not be belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. In the report filed in the Police Station, there ought to have been some averment indicating that the offender does not belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. In the absence of such averment or any other material before the Police Station Officer for coming to the conclusion that the accused named in the said report does not belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, the offence under Section 3 of the Atrocities Act cannot be registered.

It is apparent from this observations of this Court that the F.I.R. should not only disclose the caste of the complainant but it must also disclose the caste of the accused. If we go through the F.I.R., copy of which has been filed on record of this case, it would be clear that the report does disclose the caste of the complainant but it does not disclose the caste of the offender at all. The learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 2 submitted that when the caste of the complainant itself is disclosed and it is alleged that he was abused on the basis of the caste, he is the person who does not belong to scheduled caste. Such an inference cannot be drawn. He also submitted that even if name of the complainant is seen, he does not belong to scheduled caste. Even such an inference cannot be drawn. The surnames in the State of Maharashtra is very deceptive. For instance, surnames Athawale, Abhyankar are to be found amongst Brahmins and such surnames are also to be found amongst scheduled castes. It cannot, therefore, be said that the surname can be a guide to find a caste of any particular person. It is particularly for this reason that it becomes necessary that the caste of the offender must also be disclosed in the complaint. In this particular case, the caste of the complainant is not disclosed in the complaint and yet the offence has been registered by the police. This Court in Manohar Kulkarni’s case has specifically held that in no case the Police Officer can register an offence if caste of the complainant or the accused is not mentioned in the complaint.

5. I am bound by this decision. The learned Counsel has referred to a decision of the Kerala High Court in MANU/KE/0288/2007, Alex and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. The Kerala High Court made a reference to the judgment of this Court in Manohar Kulkarni’s case and has disagreed with the dictum of this Court in that case. It may be mentioned that I am, however, bound by the decision of this Court and I am not bound to follow the decision of any other High Court. In view of this, this decision cannot in any way help the case of the complainant.

6. It was contended that the offence has been registered by the police after collection of the material and therefore, there is no reason to strike down the First Information Report. Had the police really registered the offence after collection of the evidence with regard to the caste then perhaps the F.I.R. could not have been struck down, but the F.I.R. was registered even before there was any evidence with regard to the caste of the accused/offender.

7. The next ground upon which the petitioner seeks to quash the F.I.R. is that the alleged incident is said to have taken place in the cabin of the applicant/accused. This fact is not disputed. It is even clear from the complaint itself that the alleged incident had taken place inside the cabin of the complainant. The said cabin as is clear from the spot panchanama, is inside the office of the said daily newspaper Deshonnati. The spot panchanama also makes it clear that nothing is audible outside if anybody speaks inside the cabin and the complaint does not disclose that the said cabin is visible from any public place. In the decision reported in MANU/MH/0550/2005 : 2005(3)MhLj1006 , V.P. Shetty v. Sr. Inspector of Police and Anr., this Court has specifically held that the incident of insult or intimidation has to occur in a place accessible to and in the presence of the public. The place where the incidents have taken place, is a cabin of an editor of a daily newspaper which is exclusively a private property. The public in general cannot have free access to such a cabin at all. The said cabin is not visible or accessible to the public freely. In view of this, the incident cannot be said to have taken place at a place within a public view at all. On account of the fact that the incident had taken place inside the cabin, this ingredient that the incident must take place within a public view is also not present in the matter. The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that in a case reported in 2006(2) M.L.J. 237 : 2006 ALL 2817, Anis Ahmed v. State of Maharashtra it has been held that a chamber of the Collector is a public place. There cannot be any doubt about this. The Collector is a Public Officer and every citizen or a member of a public has every right to enter into the chamber of the Collector if he has any grievance, and being a public servant, the Collector is bound to give entry to any person whoever desires to meet him and he cannot restrict the entry. In view of this, this ruling has no bearing on the case at hand.

8. The learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the report of International Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. My attention was particularly drawn to Note No. 26 in the said observations of the Committee on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. There is no doubt that there should not be any kind of discrimination and no person can, in fact, be insulted on basis of his caste, creed or religion. Since I am bound by the decision in Manohar Kulkarni’s case, I must hold that the F.I.R. under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act needs to be quashed. Hence, the following order. The petition is allowed to the extent that the F.I.R. registered under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act stands quashed.