Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-NAG:3009-DB
apl159 of 2020.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 159 OF 2020
APPLICANT : Abdul Nazim Abdul Rauf,
Aged about 40 years, Occu: Corporator,
Municipal Corporation, Amravati,
R/o Gaus Nagar, Amravati, District
Amravati.
..VERSUS..
:
1)
RESPONDENTS State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer, Police
Station Samraspura and District
Amravati.
2)
Sau. Navnit w/o Ravi Rana,
Aged about 34 years, Occu:
Stitching work, R/o Ganga Savitri
Niwas, Shankar Nagar, Tq. & Dist.
Amravati.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Parth L. Sagdeo, counsel for applicant.
Ms S.V. Kolhe, APP for respondent/State.
Mr C.A. Babrekar, counsel for respondent No.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATE OF RESERVE : 11/02/2026
:
DATE OF DECISION 20 /02/2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of
Mr. Parth L. Sagdeo, learned counsel for applicant, Ms S.V. Kolhe, learned
APP for Respondent/State and Mr. C.A. Babrekar, learned counsel for
rkn
apl159 of 2020.doc
2
respondent No.2, the application is taken up for final hearing at the stage of
admission.
2. In the present matter, at the instance of respondent No.2, an offence
came to be registered against the present applicant for the offences punishable
under Sections 500 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(u) and 3(1)(zc) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act of 1989’)
3. The applicant approached before this Court with the submission that
the allegations levelled against him was never uttered by him with any
criminal intention. Secondly, even if the said allegations are taken at their face
value and accepted its entirety, no offence under the Act of 1989 is made out
against him. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court to quash and set aside
the criminal proceedings registered against him in the matter.
4. The learned APP and respondent No.2 have strongly opposed the
application. According to them, a perusal of the prosecution case clearly
establishes that an offence under the Act of 1989 is clearly made out against
the present applicant, as there is specific utterance of respondent No.2 which
is reiterated in the complaint. Considering this specific allegation against
respondent No.2, the offence is prima-facie made out in the matter, and
therefore, it is not a fit case for interference of this Court at the stage in the
matter.
5. In the present case, it will be relevant to consider the factual matrix of
the matter. The applicant herein was the elected Corporator of Ward No. 16 of
the Municipal Corporation, Amravati. He was holding post of Secretary of
political party, namely All India Mijlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), for
Maharashtra State, and was also the President for Vidharbha Region. The
complainant, respondent No.2, is also a political figure and belongs to a
political party in the Amravati. This fact is not disputed in the matter.
rkn
apl159 of 2020.doc
3
6. The case of the applicant is that there was political rivalry between
the applicant and husband of non-applicant No.2, namely Ravi Rana, who
was then sitting Member of Legislative Assembly from the Badnera
constituency. Earlier, the applicant had supported the husband of the non-
applicant No.2, but due to conflict arose between them, they were separated.
There are complaints lodged by the applicant against the husband of the non-
applicant No.2 before the Police Commissioner of Amravati City. Considering
the complaints, the Police Commissioner provided police protection to the
applicant.
7. In the present case, non-applicant No.2 has filed a police complaint
against the present applicant at Police Station Samarspura on 10/01/2020
regarding an alleged incident that occurred during Assembly elections
scheduled on 18/04/2019. She has alleged that she belongs to the Chambhar
caste, which falls under the Scheduled Caste category, and the applicant is well
aware about her caste. She further alleged that, during a public meeting dated
06/12/2019, the applicant delivered a speech with the intention to defame her
and uttered the following words:
“
vkSj vks ,d ukpusokyh ftldks geus fiNyh ckj geus pquko esa oksV
fn;k iqjs 95 VDds eqlyekuksus vkSj D;k cksyh D;k cksyh js vks oks
eqlyeku vkSjrksdks vk>knh fey x;h ,slk rq rS; djsxh gekjh vkSjrks
dks vk>knh feyh rsjs dks vk>knh vc ge nsrs cMusjk es rsjk enZ [kMk
gqok gS crkrs mldks
Non-applicant No. 2, on the basis of this allegation on 10/01/2020
lodged complaint against applicant and accordingly the offence came to be
registered against the present applicant in the matter.
8. The submission of the present applicant for quashing of the
proceedings is that, admittedly, non-applicant No.2 before joining the politics
was in the profession of an actress. Therefore, according to him, the word
ukpusokyh in his speech which is expressed by the informant is not derogatory,
rkn
apl159 of 2020.doc
4
as alleged by respondent No.2. According to him, the said utterance on his
part was not against her caste. Hence, the offence under the Act, 1989 is not
attracted.
9. In respect of offence registered under Sections 500 and 506 of the
IPC, it is the submission of the applicant that same offence are non-
cognizable. As per Section 155 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
police officers are precluded from registering the offences under this provision
without an order of the Magistrate. In the present case, admittedly, there is no
such order of the Magistrate, and therefore, these offences cannot be registered
against him in the matter.
10. The learned APP and learned counsel for respondent No.2 stated
that Section 3(1)(r) specifically states about intentional insults or intimidates
against a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, with the
intention to humiliate such person in any place within public view, attract the
rigor of punishment under the Act of 1989. It is contended that, in the public
speech delivered by the applicant, where he has uttered the words are certainly
humiliate the non-applicant No.2. Therefore, considering the specific
provision under the Act of 1989, the offence is prima-facie made out against
the applicant in the matter.
11. In the light of submission made by both the parties before this Court,
it will be relevant to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Karuppudayar Vs State Rep. By the Deputy Superintendent of
Police Lalgudi Trichy and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 215,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed in para-9 of the
judgment which reads thus:-
“9. A perusal of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC-ST Act would reveal
that for constituting an offence thereunder, it has to be established
that the accused intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in
any place within public view. Similarly, for constituting an offence
rkn
apl159 of 2020.doc
5
under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, it will be necessary that the
accused abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe by caste name in any place within public view”.
12. It will be further relevant to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Hitesh Verma vs The State Of Uttarakhand
(2020) 10 SCC 710, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
observed in paragraph nos.11 , 12 and 13 which reproduced are as under :-
“11. It may be stated that the charge-sheet filed is for an offence
under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section stands substituted
by Act No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016. The substituted corresponding
provision is Section 3(1)(r) which reads as under:
“3(1)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any
place within public view;”
12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of
the Act can be classified as “1) intentionally insults or intimidates
with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any place within public view”.
13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate
the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All
insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the
Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim
belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the
Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil
rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a
member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to
indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over
the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities,
humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their
remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his
family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that
respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then
the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the
procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that
respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste.”
rkn
apl159 of 2020.doc
6
13. From the above mentioned judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India, it is clear that an offence under the Act of 1989, is not established
merely on the fact that informant is a member of Scheduled Caste. There must
be an intention to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe on account of the victim belonging to such caste. Therefore, unless there
is a specific intention and the allegations are deliberately on account of the
victim being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the offence
under the Atrocities Act is not made out in the matter.
14. In the present case, it is seen from the allegation which is recorded in
the First Information Report and reproduced above; the word used by the
present applicant is ukpusokyh (Dancer). Therefore, the question arose whether
uttering the word is a derogatory in nature or same is uttered with
ukpusokyh
the background of her earlier profession. Furthermore, except this word
ukpusokyh , there is no other word used by the applicant on the caste of non-
applicant No.2.
15. Applicant specifically pointed out that the background of the present
case which makes it clear that the complaint came to be lodged by the non-
applicant No.2 with an oblique political motive.
16. It is further pertinent to note that the intention of the applicant could
have been gathered if he had specifically alleged on the castes of the non-
applicant No.2 with some derogatory allegation. However, a perusal of the
complaint, prima-facie, does not show that the allegations comes in the
category of derogatory in nature.
17. In a political field, normally this statement is made nowadays by the
political leaders. Therefore, considering the fact that the utterance of sentence
at the instance of applicant is in a public meeting, it cannot be concluded that
same was with an intention to insult or intimidates with intent to humiliate
the non-applicant No.2.
rkn
apl159 of 2020.doc
7
18. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no offence
is made out against the present applicant in the matter. Therefore, I proceed to
pass the following order.
ORDER
a] The criminal application is allowed.
b] The proceedings bearing Special Case No. 09 of 2025,
pending before the learned District Judge No.2 and
Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, arising out of
Chargesheet No. 11 of 2025 in Crime No.05/2020, for
the offences punishable under Sections 500, 506 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(u)
and 3(1)(zc) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are hereby
quashed and set aside against present applicant.
19. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No orders as to
costs.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J)
rkn
apl159 of 2020.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 159 OF 2020
APPLICANT : Abdul Nazim Abdul Rauf,
Aged about 40 years, Occu: Corporator,
Municipal Corporation, Amravati,
R/o Gaus Nagar, Amravati, District
Amravati.
..VERSUS..
:
1)
RESPONDENTS State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer, Police
Station Samraspura and District
Amravati.
2)
Sau. Navnit w/o Ravi Rana,
Aged about 34 years, Occu:
Stitching work, R/o Ganga Savitri
Niwas, Shankar Nagar, Tq. & Dist.
Amravati.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Parth L. Sagdeo, counsel for applicant.
Ms S.V. Kolhe, APP for respondent/State.
Mr C.A. Babrekar, counsel for respondent No.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATE OF RESERVE : 11/02/2026
:
DATE OF DECISION 20 /02/2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of
Mr. Parth L. Sagdeo, learned counsel for applicant, Ms S.V. Kolhe, learned
APP for Respondent/State and Mr. C.A. Babrekar, learned counsel for
rkn
apl159 of 2020.doc
2
respondent No.2, the application is taken up for final hearing at the stage of
admission.
2. In the present matter, at the instance of respondent No.2, an offence
came to be registered against the present applicant for the offences punishable
under Sections 500 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(u) and 3(1)(zc) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act of 1989’)
3. The applicant approached before this Court with the submission that
the allegations levelled against him was never uttered by him with any
criminal intention. Secondly, even if the said allegations are taken at their face
value and accepted its entirety, no offence under the Act of 1989 is made out
against him. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court to quash and set aside
the criminal proceedings registered against him in the matter.
4. The learned APP and respondent No.2 have strongly opposed the
application. According to them, a perusal of the prosecution case clearly
establishes that an offence under the Act of 1989 is clearly made out against
the present applicant, as there is specific utterance of respondent No.2 which
is reiterated in the complaint. Considering this specific allegation against
respondent No.2, the offence is prima-facie made out in the matter, and
therefore, it is not a fit case for interference of this Court at the stage in the
matter.
5. In the present case, it will be relevant to consider the factual matrix of
the matter. The applicant herein was the elected Corporator of Ward No. 16 of
the Municipal Corporation, Amravati. He was holding post of Secretary of
political party, namely All India Mijlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), for
Maharashtra State, and was also the President for Vidharbha Region. The
complainant, respondent No.2, is also a political figure and belongs to a
political party in the Amravati. This fact is not disputed in the matter.
rkn
apl159 of 2020.doc
3
6. The case of the applicant is that there was political rivalry between
the applicant and husband of non-applicant No.2, namely Ravi Rana, who
was then sitting Member of Legislative Assembly from the Badnera
constituency. Earlier, the applicant had supported the husband of the non-
applicant No.2, but due to conflict arose between them, they were separated.
There are complaints lodged by the applicant against the husband of the non-
applicant No.2 before the Police Commissioner of Amravati City. Considering
the complaints, the Police Commissioner provided police protection to the
applicant.
7. In the present case, non-applicant No.2 has filed a police complaint
against the present applicant at Police Station Samarspura on 10/01/2020
regarding an alleged incident that occurred during Assembly elections
scheduled on 18/04/2019. She has alleged that she belongs to the Chambhar
caste, which falls under the Scheduled Caste category, and the applicant is well
aware about her caste. She further alleged that, during a public meeting dated
06/12/2019, the applicant delivered a speech with the intention to defame her
and uttered the following words:
“
vkSj vks ,d ukpusokyh ftldks geus fiNyh ckj geus pquko esa oksV
fn;k iqjs 95 VDds eqlyekuksus vkSj D;k cksyh D;k cksyh js vks oks
eqlyeku vkSjrksdks vk>knh fey x;h ,slk rq rS; djsxh gekjh vkSjrks
dks vk>knh feyh rsjs dks vk>knh vc ge nsrs cMusjk es rsjk enZ [kMk
gqok gS crkrs mldks
Non-applicant No. 2, on the basis of this allegation on 10/01/2020
lodged complaint against applicant and accordingly the offence came to be
registered against the present applicant in the matter.
8. The submission of the present applicant for quashing of the
proceedings is that, admittedly, non-applicant No.2 before joining the politics
was in the profession of an actress. Therefore, according to him, the word
ukpusokyh in his speech which is expressed by the informant is not derogatory,
rkn
apl159 of 2020.doc
4
as alleged by respondent No.2. According to him, the said utterance on his
part was not against her caste. Hence, the offence under the Act, 1989 is not
attracted.
9. In respect of offence registered under Sections 500 and 506 of the
IPC, it is the submission of the applicant that same offence are non-
cognizable. As per Section 155 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
police officers are precluded from registering the offences under this provision
without an order of the Magistrate. In the present case, admittedly, there is no
such order of the Magistrate, and therefore, these offences cannot be registered
against him in the matter.
10. The learned APP and learned counsel for respondent No.2 stated
that Section 3(1)(r) specifically states about intentional insults or intimidates
against a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, with the
intention to humiliate such person in any place within public view, attract the
rigor of punishment under the Act of 1989. It is contended that, in the public
speech delivered by the applicant, where he has uttered the words are certainly
humiliate the non-applicant No.2. Therefore, considering the specific
provision under the Act of 1989, the offence is prima-facie made out against
the applicant in the matter.
11. In the light of submission made by both the parties before this Court,
it will be relevant to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Karuppudayar Vs State Rep. By the Deputy Superintendent of
Police Lalgudi Trichy and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 215,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed in para-9 of the
judgment which reads thus:-
“9. A perusal of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC-ST Act would reveal
that for constituting an offence thereunder, it has to be established
that the accused intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in
any place within public view. Similarly, for constituting an offence
rkn
apl159 of 2020.doc
5
under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, it will be necessary that the
accused abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe by caste name in any place within public view”.
12. It will be further relevant to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Hitesh Verma vs The State Of Uttarakhand
(2020) 10 SCC 710, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
observed in paragraph nos.11 , 12 and 13 which reproduced are as under :-
“11. It may be stated that the charge-sheet filed is for an offence
under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section stands substituted
by Act No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016. The substituted corresponding
provision is Section 3(1)(r) which reads as under:
“3(1)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any
place within public view;”
12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of
the Act can be classified as “1) intentionally insults or intimidates
with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any place within public view”.
13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate
the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All
insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the
Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim
belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the
Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil
rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a
member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to
indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over
the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities,
humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their
remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his
family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that
respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then
the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the
procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that
respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste.”
rkn
apl159 of 2020.doc
6
13. From the above mentioned judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India, it is clear that an offence under the Act of 1989, is not established
merely on the fact that informant is a member of Scheduled Caste. There must
be an intention to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe on account of the victim belonging to such caste. Therefore, unless there
is a specific intention and the allegations are deliberately on account of the
victim being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the offence
under the Atrocities Act is not made out in the matter.
14. In the present case, it is seen from the allegation which is recorded in
the First Information Report and reproduced above; the word used by the
present applicant is ukpusokyh (Dancer). Therefore, the question arose whether
uttering the word is a derogatory in nature or same is uttered with
ukpusokyh
the background of her earlier profession. Furthermore, except this word
ukpusokyh , there is no other word used by the applicant on the caste of non-
applicant No.2.
15. Applicant specifically pointed out that the background of the present
case which makes it clear that the complaint came to be lodged by the non-
applicant No.2 with an oblique political motive.
16. It is further pertinent to note that the intention of the applicant could
have been gathered if he had specifically alleged on the castes of the non-
applicant No.2 with some derogatory allegation. However, a perusal of the
complaint, prima-facie, does not show that the allegations comes in the
category of derogatory in nature.
17. In a political field, normally this statement is made nowadays by the
political leaders. Therefore, considering the fact that the utterance of sentence
at the instance of applicant is in a public meeting, it cannot be concluded that
same was with an intention to insult or intimidates with intent to humiliate
the non-applicant No.2.
rkn
apl159 of 2020.doc
7
18. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no offence
is made out against the present applicant in the matter. Therefore, I proceed to
pass the following order.
ORDER
a] The criminal application is allowed.
b] The proceedings bearing Special Case No. 09 of 2025,
pending before the learned District Judge No.2 and
Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, arising out of
Chargesheet No. 11 of 2025 in Crime No.05/2020, for
the offences punishable under Sections 500, 506 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(u)
and 3(1)(zc) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are hereby
quashed and set aside against present applicant.
19. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No orders as to
costs.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J)
rkn