Bombay High Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet, Finding SC/ST Act and Section 324 IPC Ingredients Not Made Out

A single-judge bench of Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe heard a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC seeking quashal of FIR No. 121 of 2010 and Chargesheet No. 237/PW/2014 arising from an alleged incident at Siddharth Law College on 27.06.2007. The petition, filed by Virendranath B. Tiwari (in person), challenged registration of offences under Section 324 IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned FIR and the chargesheet, holding that the allegations, taken at face value, did not disclose the ingredients of the offences charged under Section 324 IPC read with the relevant provisions of the Atrocities Act (now re-numbered as Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)). The Court found no material to show caste-based humiliation or use of a caste-name insult, concluded the injury alleged was simple and not by a dangerous weapon, and observed that repeated prior complaints by the same complainant raised the prospect of malice and harassment. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents delineating the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) and on principles permitting interference under Section 482 CrPC where proceedings are frivolous, vexatious or mala fide. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “At face value, the allegations in the impugned FIR/ Chargesheet do not disclose any of the ingredients of Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the Atrocities Act, 1989 {now Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act, 1989}.” The judgment also noted that “the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely” where multiple complaints suggested vengeance, and echoed the Supreme Court’s clarification that “the offence under Section 3(1)(r) cannot stand merely on the fact that the informant/complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.”

Background The dispute arose from a statement dated 02.07.2010 by Respondent No. 2 alleging that on 27.06.2007 the petitioner abused her, accused her of possessing bogus certificates and assaulted her with an umbrella in a lift at Siddharth Law College, causing injury. An FIR was registered and an investigation resulted in the chargesheet under Section 324 IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the Atrocities Act, 1989. The petitioner contended that the complaint was motivated by revenge after he questioned the respondent’s entitlement to a reserved seat and that two earlier complaints by the same respondent led respectively to an acquittal (SC/ST Special Case No. 2 of 2003) and discharge (SC/ST Special Case No. 09 of 2007).

On the pleadings, the State relied on the complainant’s statement and investigation, while counsel for Respondent No. 2 conceded the FIR did not disclose caste-name insults (Section 3(1)(s)) but argued that abusive words and threats, coupled with a simple assault causing hurt, attracted Section 3(1)(r) and provisions in the schedule to Section 3(2)(va). The Court examined statutory text, legislative amendments (observing section additions post-dated the incident) and relevant Supreme Court decisions, including Keshaw Mahto and Mahmood Ali, which set out the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) and the obligation to scrutinise repeated complaints alleging vengeance. The Court found no material showing caste-based humiliation, no evidence that the assault involved a weapon or means envisaged by Section 324 IPC, and that the post-2016 amendment relied on by respondent could not apply to a 2007 incident. Applying the tests in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and subsequent authorities, the Court concluded the proceedings were amenable to quashal under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process. The petition was allowed, the FIR and chargesheet were quashed and there were no orders as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: Writ Petition No. 2789 of 2010 Case Title: Virendranath B. Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Virendranath B. Tiwari, party in person For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, APP for the State; Mr. Rizwan Merchant a/w Ms. Uma Nemlekar, Mr. Saurabh Godbole i/b Mr. Sahil Mahajan for Respondent No. 2 Coram: Ashwin D. Bhobe, J. Pronounced on: 16th March, 2026