Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Under SC/ST Act, Finds Complaint "Manifestly Mala fide" and Lacking Public View

A Division Bench of Justices A. S. Gadkari and Rajesh S. Patil heard a petition under Article 226 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the FIR registered at Pali Police Station (C.R. No.189/2022) dated 27 December 2022 under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 504 IPC. The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR on the ground of malafide prosecution, delay in lodging the complaint and absence of independent witnesses.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, holding that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not disclose a case under the SC/ST Act in the facts of the matter and that the prosecution was "manifestly attended with mala fide". The Bench noted that the alleged caste abuse occurred within the cow shade of the complainant in the evening and that witnesses were close relatives or friends, not independent persons; therefore the incident could not be said to have occurred in "public view" or at a "public place." The Court relied on established precedents to frame the scope of exercise of inherent jurisdiction and concluded that the petitioner's case fell within the category permitting quashing. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code ... we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised ... (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge..” The Bench further recorded that “it cannot be said to be a place within the public view, as none of the said witness present at the scene of offence, was an independent witness.”

Background

The dispute arose after the petitioner purchased agricultural land in Jambhulpada in 2015 and conducted a survey in August 2022, during which he noticed constructions and a cattle shade on his land. The parties executed a consent letter on 9 August 2022 by which the petitioner paid the respondent certain sums, but subsequently erected boundary compounding the land. The petitioner later lodged CR No.156/2022 alleging theft of iron angles and wires on 16 November 2022 and made a complaint to the Group Gram Panchayat on 21 November 2022, which issued a notice to the respondent on 27 December 2022. The FIR now challenged alleged that on 25 November 2022 the petitioner abused the respondent on account of caste and blocked access to a hand pump by erecting the compound.

The petitioner argued that the FIR was delayed by about 30 days, that the alleged abuse occurred within a private cattle shade and not in public view, and that witnesses were interested persons; he relied on Supreme Court and High Court authorities including Swaran Singh v. State and Bhajan Lal (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal) to contend for quashing under Section 482/Article 226. The State opposed, asserting a prima facie case and contending delay was explained by social circumstances. The Court observed that earlier interim directions (order dated 14 February 2023) had allowed investigation to continue but precluded filing of charge-sheet without leave; that interim relief had been confirmed on admission; and that the respondent had been served but did not appear.

Applying the principles in Bhajan Lal and subsequent authorities, the Bench concluded that the allegations did not disclose a cognizable offence under the SC/ST Act on the material before court and that the proceeding was maliciously instituted. The petition was allowed and the rule made absolute in terms of quashing the FIR; the Court expressly held the case fell within clause (7) of paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal.

Case Details: Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 1356 OF 2023 NeutralCitation: 2026:BHC-AS:12132-DB Case Title: Shailendra Bankebihari Singh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rajiv Chavan, Senior Advocate; Ms. Rashmi Tiwari; Ms. Asmi Desai; Ms. Sonam Pandey i/b Ms. Bhairavi Waravdekar For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vinod Chate, A.P.P. for State of Maharashtra