It is definitely most reasonable to note that while striking the right chord, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled VW vs State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No. 566 of 2021 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:BHC-NAG:13024 in which hearing was closed after hearing all the sides on 26/11/2024 and then was finally pronounced on 29/11/2024 has upheld the closure of a case against a woman who had been booked under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) on allegations that she had sent casteist messages to her ex-boyfriend while ending a romantic relationship.

It must be mentioned here that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms most unequivocally that the WhatsApp messages exchanged between the two, which included WhatsApp forwards, merely expressed views about caste reservation and did not promote feelings of enmity or hatred against SC/ST members. In the ultimate analysis, we thus see that the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court finally dismissed the appeal thus upholding the Trial Court’s most pragmatic judgment to discharge the accused. Very rightly so!

At the very outset, this most progressive, pragmatic, persuasive and pertinent judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke of Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The present appeal is preferred under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Atrocities Act) challenging order dated 5.8.2021 passed by learned Special Judge under the Atrocities Act whereby respondents Nos.2 and 3 are discharged.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then while laying the background of this leading case and elaborating on the facts envisages in para 4 of this brilliant judgment that:
Respondents Nos.1 and 2 are arraigned as accused in connection with Crime No.477/2019 for offences under Section 3(1)(u) and 3(1)(v) of the Atrocities Act on the basis of a report lodged by the complainant. As per allegations, he got acquainted with accused No.1, who at the relevant time was taking education. Love affair then developed between them and they performed marriage in Koradi Temple. However, they kept the said marriage secret and not disclosed to their family members. It is alleged that when accused No.1 came to know that the complainant belongs to Chambhar Community, she suddenly changed her mind and denied to continue a relationship with the complainant. There were exchange of messages between the complainant and accused No.1 on Whatsapp and accused No.1 expressed her views over Caste Based Reservation System. It is alleged that accused No.1 humiliated and insulted the complainant by written words and promoted feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will against members of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. On the basis of the said report, police registered the crime against accused No.1 and her father accused No.2.

As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 5 of this learned judgment that, After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a chargesheet. After filing of the chargesheet, accused persons preferred an application contending that even taking into consideration allegation at its face value, the same do not constitute any offences or make out a case against them under Section 3(1)(u) and 3(1)(v) of the Atrocities Act and prayed for their discharge.

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 6 disclosing that:
The application is strongly opposed by the State as well as the complainant. After hearing both sides and perusing investigation papers, learned Judge below held that literature published nowhere discloses that there was any attempts to promote any enmity or hatred or ill-will between two communities and to humiliate Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and as such learned Judge below discharged accused persons.

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 16 of this brief judgment that, On going through the entire material, it reveals that messages only show feelings expressed as to Caste Reservation System. Such messages nowhere show that there was any attempt to promote any enmity or hatred or ill-will against members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes. At the most, it can be said that her target was just the complainant only. However, accused No.1 did not write any word which would create or promote any ill-will or enmity or hatred against members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

Be it also noted, the Bench then notes in para 17 that:
The Atrocities Act has been enacted to improve socio-economic condition of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and to protect them from various indignities, humiliation and harassment. The Legislation, thus, intends to punish acts committed against vulnerable sections of our society for the reason that they belong to a particular community.

Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 18 of this bold judgment that, While considering whether there is a prima facie case that exists or not, the court has to conduct a preliminary enquiry to determine whether narration of facts in the First Information Report discloses essential ingredients requiring to constitute an offence under the Atrocities Act.

To be sure, the Bench then stipulates in para 19 of this remarkable judgment that:
Thus, the court has to apply its judicial mind to determine whether allegations levelled in the complaint, on a plain reading, satisfy ingredients constituting the alleged offence?

Simply put, the Bench then observes concisely in para 20 of this refreshing judgment stating that:
In the present case, after conducting a preliminary enquiry, learned Judge below came to the conclusion that ingredients are not established.

Quite ostensibly, the Bench then points out in para 21 of this noteworthy judgment that:
It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charges, when the Magistrate or the Judge to consider the above question on a general consideration on material placed before him/her by the Investigation Officer, veracity and effect of evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. At the stage of framing of charge or while considering discharge application, it is to be seen whether there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Ground in the context, is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting accused on trial. It is in the trial, guilt or innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge and, therefore, elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing materials is not required. It is also not necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the court has to consider is, whether evidentiary material, if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime or not.

Truth be told, the Bench then propounds in para 22 of this most commendable judgment specifying that:
Thus, a duty is cast on the judge to apply his/her mind to the material on record and if the court does not find sufficient material against the accused, the accused can be discharged. On the other hand, if prima facie case is made out, the charge can be framed.

Most significantly and as a corollary, the Division Bench then encapsulates in para 25 of this recent judgment postulating that:
In the light of the above settled principles, if the order impugned is perused, it is clear that expectation from the court, while framing of the charge is to consider charge against accused on a general consideration of material placed before it by the investigating agency, which was considered by learned Judge below and learned Judge below rightly came to conclusion that to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(u) of the Atrocities Act, there is nothing even prima facie to indicate that accused No.1 attempted to promote feeling of enmity or hatred or ill-will against members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. It is just an expression by her as to the Caste Reservation System. The offence under Section 3(1)(u) of the Atrocities Act will come into play only when any person is trying to promote ill-will or enmity or hatred against members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

Finally, we see that the Bench then concludes by succinctly holding in para 26 of this courageous judgment that:
For reasons stated above, the appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of.

In a nutshell, we thus see that the Single Judge Bench of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke has made it indubitably clear in this cogent judgment that Whatsapp messages expressing opinion on caste reservation is no offence under SC/ST Act. It also must be borne in mind that the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court thus very rightly, rationally and robustly endorsed the judgment of the Trial Court that had discharged the woman and her father on August 5, 2021 leading to an appeal by the complainant who was a former partner of the woman. No denying or disputing!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh