It is definitely in the fitness of things that while most commendably displaying absolute zero tolerance for slapping a Scheduled Caste MP and uttering derogatory words in public views, the Bombay High Court in a most learned, laudable, logical and latest judgment titled Neema Sanjay Rangari & Anr vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3879 of 2024 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:BHC-AS:46916-DB in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction that was pronounced as recently as on December 2, 2024 has dismissed a petition for quashing an FIR under the SC/ST Act while stating that there is no justification for slapping an MP belonging to a Scheduled Caste in public view and uttering derogatory words. We need to note that the High Court thus upheld the FIR that had been registered by the President of the Maharashtra Pradesh Bahujan Samaj Party under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as well as Sections 115(2), 3(5) and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The Bombay High Court explicitly held that the intention of the petitioners is clearly made out in the FIR. As an ostensible fallout, the Court thus very rightly dismissed the writ petition!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sarang V Kotwal and Hon’ble Dr Justice Neela Gokhale sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The Petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the F.I.R. registered vide the C.R.No.385 of 2024 registered at Dadar police station on 17.07.2024, under sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) and under sections 115(2), 3(5) and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNS).

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 3 that:
The F.I.R. is lodged by the first informant ‘SD’. He has stated that he was the President of Maharashtra Pradesh Bahujan Samaj Party. Their party’s executive committee had a meeting on 17.07.2024 at Dadar. The meeting was arranged to announce the name of the new President for Maharashtra and the new committee members. The meeting was to be attended by Mr. ‘G’, M.P. Rajyasabha. He came at around 12:00p.m. Both the petitioners attended that meeting. They were standing in the queue to welcome Mr. ‘G’. When the Petitioner No.1 came in front of Mr. ‘G’, she slapped him. The other persons who were present at that place intervened. At that time, both the petitioners uttered derogatory words with reference to the two castes by saying that the party was made up of the people from those two scheduled castes. It is further mentioned in the F.I.R. that both of them did this act because they did not get the ticket to contest for Lok Sabha for that party; and they were angry with Mr. ‘G’. On these allegations, the F.I.R. was lodged.

Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 4 that:
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the F.I.R. is not lodged by Mr. ‘G’, who allegedly was slapped by the Petitioner No.1. The dispute was because the petitioners were not given tickets to contest the parliamentary election. The utterance was not made by any of the petitioners. The petitioner No.1 has lodged her F.I.R. vide the C.R.No.722 of 2024 on 22.07.2024 at Bhadara police station in respect of the same incident dated 17.07.2024. She had alleged in that F.I.R. that, when she had gone on the stage, ‘SD’ had demanded Rs.5 lakhs and one ‘SB’ had abused her and she was pushed from the stage. That F.I.R. is lodged at Bhandara and not at Dadar, Mumbai.

Further, the Division Bench mentions in para 5 that:
Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to an N.C. lodged at Dadar police station on 17.07.2024 in respect of the same incident. He submitted that the F.I.R. against the petitioners is a result of political vendetta and it is lodged with malafide intentions. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly stated that Mr. ‘G’ belongs to a scheduled caste. The statement of Mr. ‘G’ itself mentions that he belongs to a scheduled caste.

Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 8 that:
Learned senior Counsel for the Respondent No.2, on the other hand, submitted that the offence is clearly made out. The ingredients of the offences are present in the F.I.R. itself.

It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 9 that:
Learned APP produced the investigation papers before us. She submitted that there are many eye witnesses to the incident and the CCTV footage has captured the entire incident. Therefore, the offences are made out.

As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 10 stating that:
We have considered these submissions. The F.I.R. referred to by the petitioners which was lodged at Bhandara police station vide the C.R.No.722 of 2024 does not make any reference to slapping of Mr. ‘G’ which is the subject matter of the C.R.No.385 of 2024 lodged at Dadar police station. There are allegations against ‘SD’ and ‘SB’ regarding demand of Rs.5 lakhs. That F.I.R. is lodged at Bhandara police station. The Petitioner No.1 had approached Dadar police station and had lodged her N.C. on 17.07.2024. At that time, there was no allegation of demand of Rs.5 lakhs as she had made in her F.I.R. The allegations are about abusing and assaulting. The N.C. does not make any reference to Mr. ‘G’.

Quite significantly, the Division Bench points out in para 11 of this robust judgment that:
As far as the contention, that the F.I.R. is lodged because of political vendetta is concerned; there is sufficient material collected during investigation to indicate that the incident did take place. There are no false allegations against the petitioners due to political vendetta. Actual slapping of Mr. ‘G’ is an offence U/s.3(2) (va) of the said Act. Section 3(2)(va) of the said Act reads thus:-

3(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe – 3(2)(va) : commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine;

The schedule annexed to the said Act refers to Section 323 of the I.P.C. Therefore, though the investigating agency has not applied that particular section in the F.I.R., the material collected during the investigation clearly make out existence of ingredients of that section.

Most significantly, most remarkably and so also most forthrightly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 12 what constitutes the cornerstone of this pragmatic judgment postulating that:
Apart from that, the incident had taken place in the public place. There was a reference to particular two scheduled castes and utterance was in derogation of those two castes. This was immediately following the main incident of assaulting Mr. ‘G’. Therefore, the intention of the petitioners is clearly made out in the F.I.R. The incident was witnessed by many other witnesses viz. Mangesh Thakre, Santosh Shinde, Yogesh Lanjewar, Mohan Raikwar, Pravin Dhotre, Rajesh Kamble and Santosh Adsule. All these statements, in fact, show that the utterances were highly humiliating. Apart from that, there is panchanama of seizure of CCTV footage. The incident recorded in the CCTV camera is described in that panchanama. It supports the version in the F.I.R. and of the eye witnesses. The utterance also targets those particular castes. Thus, there is overwhelming circumstances and material against the present petitioners. The two Judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not support his contention in the background of the material against the petitioners. As far as the Judgment in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra) is concerned, it dealt with a question of public view. As mentioned earlier, there are many eye witnesses who had seen the incident and the members of the scheduled caste were humiliated in public. The intention is clear. The reliance on the case of Shajan Skaria (supra) is also misplaced because it is not a case of malicious prosecution or registration of F.I.R. out of political or private vendetta. There is no justification for slapping of a member of parliament belonging to a scheduled caste, in public view and utterance of those derogatory words. The offences under the said Act are clearly made out. No case for quashing of the F.I.R. is made out.

Finally, we see that the Division Bench then draws the curtains of this noteworthy judgment by holding and directing in para 13 stating that:
The writ petition is dismissed.

In summary, we thus see that the Bombay High Court has taken a very grim view of slapping Scheduled Caste MP in public view and uttering derogatory words in public view. It is thus absolutely in the fitness of things that while striking the right chord, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner to quash the FIR under SC/ST Act against him! Very rightly so!

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