Bombay High Court: In a present case, a criminal application was filed by the applicant for quashing FIR dated 7-8-2023 registered with Jalgaon City Police Station and the proceedings pending before the Special Judge, under the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the Atrocities Act’). The Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi* and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, JJ., after considering the video made by the applicant, wherein while complaining about the garbage in an area, he used words like “Bhangiwada” and “Mehtarwada”, opined that the said words could not be considered as insulting the members of Rukhi or Walmiki caste and the intention behind stating that, was only to point out the area from where the pigs had come near the garbage. The Court thus quashed and set aside the FIR and the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
Background
The applicant, a practicing Advocate, made a video regarding an unclean area stating that there was a heap of garbage and debris, as a result of which, pigs wandered near it and caused nuisance. He stated that the pigs were sent from “Bhangiwada and Mehtarwada” and, therefore, the authorities should pick the garbage/debris. He sent the video to the Assistant Commissioner of Jalgaon Municipal Corporation, who then shared it on the WhatsApp group of workers of Municipal Corporation “Health Department”. Respondent 2-informant state that he was member of a Scheduled Caste and he relied on some Notification/Circular issued by the Government, wherein it was insisted that instead of using words like “Bhangiwada”, it should be referred as “Rukhiwada” or “Walmikiwada” and the caste “Bhangi” should not be used.
The applicant contended that the video sent by him to the Assistant commissioner did not intend to insult a particular caste and as the workers from municipal corporation were not picking the garbage daily, therefore, he was annoyed.The applicant wanted the Assistant Commissioner to take appropriate actions and could not have imagined that the Assistant commissioner would forward the video in the group. Thus, if there were uncontrolled forwards to the video, the applicant could not be held responsible for the same and it would be an abuse of process of law if he was asked to face the trial.
Respondent 2 relied on the Circular dated 16-4-2003 issued by the Social Welfare, Cultural, Sports and Special Assistance Department of the Government of Maharashtra and stated that the word “Bhangi” used in the Government Administration Department, Schools, Colleges, Institutions in its record should be replaced by the word “Rukhi” or “Walmiki”. It was submitted that the applicant’s video amounted to insult of the community and it was not a fit case where the Court should exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the applicant was not disputing that he had prepared the said video and that the informant or any member of the WhatsApp group was not present when the video was prepared by the applicant. Further, the investigation did not reveal that when the applicant was preparing the video, there was any member of a Scheduled Caste present at the spot and that the applicant was aware that the said person was a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
The Court took note of the fact that the communications on WhatsApp between two individuals wai encrypted and unless the person receiving it forwards it to a third person, the third person would not get any knowledge about the said communication between the earlier two persons.
The Court after noting the Assistant Commissioner’s contention that he without any application of mind and in hurry, had forwarded the video in the WhatsApp group, under the impression that it was the complaint in respect of not picking the garbage, and later when he started receiving complaints about the said video, he then deleted the video from the group, opined that thus, the said forward was not under the control of the applicant.
The Court opined that it appeared to be a classical example of forwards on the WhatsApp groups and WhatsApp of individuals without application of mind or without considering the consequences.
The Court noted that prior to the Circular dated 16-4-2003, there was a Circular dated 9-11-2000, issued by the Government, wherein guidelines were given to use the words “Rukhi” and “Walmiki” and “Rukhiwada” and “Walmikiwada”. The Court opined that the intention of the Circular dated 9-11-2000 was limited, and did not intend to replace the words those were already there in the Constitution. Thus, the Court stated that the informant could not rely on this circular.
The Court opined that to prove offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Atrocities Act, it must be proved by the prosecution even prima facie that the person who was not the member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe had intentionally insulted or intimidated a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. Further, to prove offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act, the prosecution even prima facie would have to show that the said person who was not the member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe had abused any member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view. Thus, the Court opined that to prove offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), a particular community should be targeted, or a particular member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe should have been targeted.
The Court, after considering the words used in the video, opined that the said words could not be considered as targeting or insulting or intimidating members of Rukhi or Walmiki caste. The Court stated that the intention behind stating that was to point out that pigs had come from a particular area.
The Court observed that it appeared from the FIR that the statement of the applicant while recording the video had been fabricated by the informant and the other witnesses from his community in their own way and, the person to whom the said video was sent had not taken that clip having meaning which the informant and the others want to intend now. The Court thus allowed the application and the FIR and the proceedings against the applicant were quashed and set aside as it would be an abuse of process of law if the applicants was asked to face the trial.
[Kedar Kishor Bhusari v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 3176 of 2023, decided on 30-04-2025]
*Judgement authored by: Justice Vibha Kankanwadi
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: S.V. Dixit, Advocate
For the Respondent: N.R. Dayama, APP for Respondent 1-State; H.V. Tungar, Advocate for Respondent 2 (Appointed).
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
