SC/ST Act Not Attracted In Absence Of Independent Witnesses To Alleged Caste-Based Slurs: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR

The Bombay High Court has quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against two accused in a property dispute, holding that the essential ingredients of the offences were not prima facie established. The Court observed that no independent witness had corroborated the allegation that caste-based slurs were used in a place within public view.

Justice Abhay J. Mantri was hearing a criminal writ petition filed seeking quashing of an FIR registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 149, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, alleging that the accused and others demolished a corrugated iron compound wall on property in the complainant's possession, abused him using caste-based slurs and threatened him.

The petitioners argued that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, as one of them had purchased the property from the complainant's brother in June 2020 and a civil suit concerning the property was pending. They further submitted that the police had not recorded statements from independent witnesses supporting the allegations of caste-based abuse.

The Court examined the witness statements and observed that the complainant's sons and wife had supported the allegation of caste-based abuse. However, an independent witness, who had seen the petitioners and others demolishing the tin-sheet compound wall, had not stated that any caste-based slurs were used.

The Court held that, in the absence of independent corroboration that the alleged incident occurred in a place within public view, the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act were not attracted. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand.

“… in view of the law laid down in Hitesh Verma (supra), it cannot be said prima facie that the alleged incident took place in a place within public view. Consequently, the ingredients of the offences punishable under the provisions of the Atrocities Act are not attracted,” the Court remarked.

The Court also noted that a civil suit over the property was pending and that one of the petitioners had previously lodged complaints alleging that the complainant had threatened to implicate him falsely under the Atrocities Act. It further observed:

“… the ingredients of Section 3(2) (va) of the Atrocities Act also do not apply to the Petitioners. No prima facie material on record demonstrates that the alleged incident took place in a place within public view to attract the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act.”

However, the Court found that there is prima facie material on record indicating the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 149, 427, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C.

Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act against the two petitioners. However, it declined to quash the allegations under Sections 143, 149, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and directed that proceedings for those offences continue in accordance with law.

Case Title: Shri Nisar Mohammed Pathan v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Writ Petition No. 3490 of 2022]