Kiran Raj

A division bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner in a case arising from alleged caste-based offenses, holding that the charges did not meet the statutory threshold for prosecution. The court found that the evidence in the charge sheet was inadequate to establish the necessary intent or elements of the alleged offenses, leading to the quashing of proceedings.

The case arose from an FIR lodged against the petitioner under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Atrocities Act). The FIR was based on allegations that the petitioner made disrespectful remarks against a leader revered by the Scheduled Caste community. The complainant asserted that these remarks were derogatory and amounted to offenses under Sections 298, 505, 505(2), 506, and 507 of the IPC, as well as Sections 3(1)(u) and 3(1)(v) of the Atrocities Act.

The complainant initially identified his religious identity as ‘Navbauddha’ at the time of filing the complaint. However, during the course of the investigation, he submitted a caste certificate indicating that he was a member of a Scheduled Caste. The prosecution heavily relied on a recorded phone conversation between the complainant and the petitioner, arguing that the petitioner’s words were inflammatory and had the potential to incite hostility.

The petitioner, in response, sought the quashing of the FIR, arguing that even if the statements in the conversation were accepted as they were, they did not establish intent to incite hatred or enmity against any community. The petitioner further pointed out that the complainant had previously posted content on social media that was provocative toward another community, prompting responses from others. The defense also challenged the prosecution’s reliance on witness statements from the petitioner’s family and acquaintances to establish ownership of the alleged phone number, asserting that no direct documentary evidence supported these claims.

Also Read: Supreme Court: Reclamation Fee Mandatory for Entire Landholding if it Exceeds 25 Cents

The prosecution claimed that statements from the complainant and witnesses confirmed that the petitioner had made the remarks in question. The prosecution further submitted that the transcript of the conversation demonstrated that the petitioner had used offensive language, warranting prosecution under the Atrocities Act and IPC provisions.

The court examined the applicability of Section 505(2) IPC and noted that prosecution under this section requires prior sanction from the government under Section 196(1A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court observed, “No court shall take cognizance of an offense punishable under Section 505(2) IPC without prior sanction from the appropriate government authority.” The court found that the charge sheet did not contain any such sanction and stated, “The absence of prior sanction renders the prosecution unsustainable in law.”

The court also examined the contents of the recorded conversation, which formed the crux of the allegations. The bench noted that while strong language may have been used, it did not meet the legal threshold required to constitute an offense under the Atrocities Act. The court observed, “The alleged conversation, when read in its entirety, does not demonstrate any intent to insult or promote enmity towards members of a Scheduled Caste community.”

Regarding Section 298 IPC, which pertains to deliberate intention to wound religious feelings, the court stated that the complainant had made posts that were critical of another community. The court remarked, “A person who engages in provocative discourse must also be prepared for responses. The law does not criminalize reactions that do not rise to the level of incitement.”

The court further examined the evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged phone number. The prosecution relied on statements from the petitioner’s father and two acquaintances to establish that the petitioner had used the phone number in question. However, the court found that no call records or subscriber details were presented as concrete proof. The court stated, “Reliance on witness statements alone, without documentary verification, weakens the prosecution’s case significantly.”

The court also considered whether the petitioner’s alleged statements violated Section 3(1)(v) of the Atrocities Act, which criminalizes disrespect toward individuals held in high esteem by Scheduled Caste communities. The court observed, “An offense under Section 3(1)(v) requires a clear intent to demean or disrespect a revered figure. The recorded conversation, in its entirety, does not indicate such an intent.”

Also Read: Matrimonial Dispute Not Ground To Conclude That Husband Set Ablaze Wife, Must Prove Allegations With Legally Acceptable Evidence: Madras HC

Based on these findings, the court stated that the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process. The order stated:

(i) Criminal Application stands allowed.

(ii) The proceedings in Special Case No.52/2020 before the Special Judge under the S.C. & S.T. Act, Aurangabad, arising from Crime No.89/2019 dated 14.08.2019 registered with Police Station, Daulatabad, are quashed and set aside as against the applicant.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate S.S. Varma holding for Advocate S.S. Ladda, while the prosecution was represented by APP S.A. Gaikwad for the State, and Advocate P.B. Waghmare appeared for the complainant.

Case Title: Devendra Rajiv Patil v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:6327-DB
Case Number: Criminal Application No.4026 of 2019
Bench: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi & Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh 

[Read/Download order]