FIR Quashed for Lack of Caste-Based Humiliation and Ulterior Motive.

The Petitioner, Virendranath B. Tiwari, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of CrPC seeking to quash FIR No. 121 of 2010 registered at Azad Maidan Police Station and the subsequent Chargesheet No. 237/PW/2014.

The FIR was based on a statement by Respondent No. 2, Chitra Shalunkhe, dated July 2, 2010, alleging that on June 27, 2007, the Petitioner abused her, claiming she had bogus certificates, and then assaulted her with an umbrella causing injuries.

The FIR registered offences under Section 324 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("Atrocities Act, 1989").

The Petitioner contended that Respondent No. 2 filed successive false complaints against him under the Atrocities Act, 1989, due to a personal vendetta stemming from his questioning her qualification and certificate.

He was acquitted in SC/ST Special Case No. 2 of 2003 (dated September 16, 2005) and discharged in SC/ST Special Case No. 09 of 2007 (dated March 25, 2010).

1. Whether the allegations in the impugned FIR and the material collected after its registration indicate the commission of a cognizable offence.

2. Whether the allegations meet the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) (now Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)) of the Atrocities Act, 1989.

3. Whether the impugned FIR and chargesheet should be quashed based on the principles established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

The court primarily applied Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Atrocities Act, 1989 (pre-amendment), and subsequently Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) (post-amendment) to determine if the alleged acts constituted an offence.

Section 3(1)(r) requires intentional insult/intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste/Tribe in public view.

Section 3(1)(s) prohibits abusing a member of a Scheduled Caste/Tribe by caste name in public view.

The court also referred to Section 324 of the IPC regarding voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons.

It relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 3(1)(r) in Keshaw Mahto @ Keshaw Kumar Mahto v. State of Bihar Anr., emphasizing that the insult or intimidation must be *because* the person is a member of SC/ST, and mere knowledge of their caste is insufficient.

The court further applied the guidelines for quashing FIRs from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, specifically category (1) where allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence and category (7) where proceedings are maliciously instituted for vengeance.

It also considered the observations in Mahmood Ali Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors. regarding reviewing frivolous/vexatious proceedings and looking beyond mere averments in the FIR for ulterior motives.

The court noted that the contents of the impugned FIR did not reveal any caste-based humiliation or insults denigrating caste, as conceded by the Respondent No. 2's advocate, thus ruling out Section 3(1)(s).

For Section 3(1)(r), the court found no indication that the petitioner's alleged abuses included using a caste name or targeting Respondent No. 2's caste to humiliate her.

Applying Keshaw Kumar Mahto (supra), the court held that mere knowledge of Respondent No. 2's caste was insufficient to invoke Section 3(1)(r); the insult or intimidation must be *on account of* her being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe.

The allegations also failed to meet the ingredients of Section 324 IPC, as the injury was simple, and an umbrella is not explicitly listed as a "dangerous weapon" under the section.

The attempt to invoke Section 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act was rejected because this provision was inserted in 2016, while the alleged offence occurred in 2007.

Given the Petitioner's previous acquittals/discharge in similar complaints by Respondent No. 2 involving the Atrocities Act, the court, guided by Mahmood Ali (supra), concluded that the current proceedings were an act of vengeance by Respondent No. 2 aimed at harassment.

Therefore, the case fit within the parameters for quashing established in Bhajan Lal (supra), particularly clauses (1) and (7), as the allegations did not constitute a cognizable offence and the proceedings were maliciously instituted.

The impugned FIR No. 121 of 2010 and the chargesheet No. 237/PW/2014 pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, were quashed.

The court found that the allegations at face value did not disclose the ingredients of Section 324 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) (now Section 3(1)(r) and (s)) of the Atrocities Act, 1989.