{"id":378755,"date":"2026-03-18T16:00:41","date_gmt":"2026-03-18T10:30:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=378755"},"modified":"2026-03-23T09:52:19","modified_gmt":"2026-03-23T04:22:19","slug":"bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/18\/bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer\/","title":{"rendered":"Bombay HC sets aside 16-year-old case against lawyer, rules allegations fail to meet IPC and SC\/ST Atrocities Act requirements"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bombay High Court:<\/span> In a petition under Section 482<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC), seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Section 324<\/a>, Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (IPC) and Sections 3(1)(x<\/span>) and (xi<\/span>)<\/a>, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989<\/a> (SC\/ST Atrocities Act), a Single Judge Bench of Ashwin D. Bhobe<\/span>, J., held that the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, did not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. The Court noted that no caste-based humiliation in public view was alleged, the injury described was simple in nature and not caused by a dangerous weapon, and that repeated FIRs suggested mala fide intent. Accordingly, applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana<\/span> v. Bhajan Lal<\/span>,<\/span> 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335<\/a>, the Court quashed the FIR and charge-sheet to prevent abuse of process of law.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The case arose from a statement dated 2 July 2010 alleging that on 27 June 2007, at Siddharth Law College, the petitioner hurled abuses, claimed the respondent possessed bogus certificates, and assaulted her with an umbrella causing injuries. Based on this, an FIR was registered under Section 324<\/a> IPC<\/a> and provisions of the SC\/ST Atrocities Act.<\/p>\n

The petitioner contended that the complaint was false, malicious, and motivated by revenge, pointing to two earlier cases under the SC\/ST Atrocities Act where he had been acquitted and discharged. He argued that the respondent misused the provisions of the SC\/ST Atrocities Act to harass him.<\/p>\n

The State submitted that the FIR was registered upon receipt of the statement, investigation was conducted, and charge-sheet filed. However, the respondent acknowledged that the FIR did not reveal caste-based humiliation under Section 3(1)(s<\/span>), but argued that abusive language and threats invoked Section 3(1)(r<\/span>)<\/a>, SC\/ST Atrocities Act<\/a>. It was further submitted that the assault constituted an offence under Section 3(2)(va<\/span>)<\/a>, SC\/ST Atrocities Act<\/a>, and that the petitioner’s intention was to outrage modesty under Section 354<\/a> IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court emphasised that the FIR and the material collected on record did not reveal the ingredients for an offence under Section 3(1)(s<\/span>)<\/a>, SC\/ST Atrocities Act<\/a>. The Court noted that to attract Section 3(1)(r<\/span>)<\/a>, SC\/ST Atrocities Act<\/a>, the impugned FIR or material on record needed to show that the petitioner intentionally insulted or intimidated the respondent (a member of a Scheduled Caste), and that he did so with the intent to humiliate the respondent at a place within public view.<\/p>\n

The Court referred to Keshaw Mahto<\/span> v. State of Bihar<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 1402<\/a>, wherein the Supreme Court observed that the offence under Section 3(1)(r<\/span>)<\/a>, SC\/ST Atrocities Act<\/a>, cannot stand merely on the fact that the informant\/complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, unless the insult or intimidation is with the intention to humiliate such a member of the community. The Supreme Court further held that mere knowledge of the petitioner that the respondent is a member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe is not enough to invoke Section 3(1)(r<\/span>)<\/a>, SC\/ST Atrocities Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Court further emphasised that the allegations in the impugned FIR, taken at face value, do not meet the ingredients of Section 324<\/a> IPC<\/a>, further the respondent had also stated that the injury caused was simple in nature. It was also noted that, regardless of the reasons the respondent filed the complaints against the petitioner, on two previous occasions the respondent made allegations against the petitioner invoking provisions of the SC\/ST Atrocities Act similar to those in the impugned FIR, however, the petitioner was acquitted in one case and discharged in another, which is not disputed.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on Mahmood Ali<\/span> v. State of U.P.<\/span>, (2023) 15 SCC 488<\/a>, where it was held that the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged, and therefore it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR\/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not.<\/p>\n

The Court further referred to Bhajan Lal<\/span> (supra) wherein the Supreme Court observed that where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, then the inherent powers under Section 482<\/a> CrPC<\/a> could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.<\/p>\n

The Court emphasised that the present case in hand falls within the principles established in Bhajan Lal<\/span> (supra) for exercising powers under Section 482<\/a> CrPC<\/a> to quash the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet arising from it, to prevent abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the Court thereby quashed the impugned FIR and charge-sheet while allowing the petition with no orders as to cost.<\/p>\n

[Virendranath B. Tiwari<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2007<\/a>, decided on 16-3-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Petitioner:<\/span> Virendranath B. Tiwari<\/p>\n

For the Respondents:<\/span> Rizwan Merchant a\/w Uma Nemlekar, Saurabh Godbole i\/b Sahil Mahajan, Sukanta Karmakar, APP<\/p>\n

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Code<\/a><\/p>\n

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"penal<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“To attract Section 3(1)(r), Atrocities Act, the FIR or material on record needed to show that the petitioner intentionally insulted or intimidated the respondent and that he did so with the intent to humiliate the respondent at a place within public view.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67537,"featured_media":378767,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2569,100800,100801,76315,100799,21114,16171,100798],"class_list":["post-378755","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-caste-based-humiliation","tag-ingredients-not-fulfilled","tag-justice-ashwin-d-bhobe","tag-mala-fide-prosecution","tag-quashing-of-fir","tag-scheduled-castes-and-scheduled-tribes-prevention-of-atrocities-act","tag-section-324-ipc"],"yoast_head":"\nBombay HC sets aside 16-year-old case against lawyer | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bombay High Court quashes a 16-year-old FIR against a lawyer, ruling that the allegations failed to establish offences under IPC or the SC\/ST Act and highlighting mala fide intent behind the prosecution.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/18\/bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bombay HC sets aside 16-year-old case against lawyer, rules allegations fail to meet IPC and SC\/ST Atrocities Act requirements\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court quashes a 16-year-old FIR against a lawyer, ruling that the allegations failed to establish offences under IPC or the SC\/ST Act and highlighting mala fide intent behind the prosecution.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/18\/bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-03-18T10:30:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-03-23T04:22:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/16-year-old-case-against-lawyer.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Soumya Yadav\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Bombay HC sets aside 16-year-old case against lawyer, rules allegations fail to meet IPC and SC\/ST Atrocities Act requirements\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Soumya Yadav\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/18\/bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/18\/bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer\/\",\"name\":\"Bombay HC sets aside 16-year-old case against lawyer | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/18\/bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/18\/bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/16-year-old-case-against-lawyer.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-03-18T10:30:41+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-23T04:22:19+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7\"},\"description\":\"Bombay High Court quashes a 16-year-old FIR against a lawyer, ruling that the allegations failed to establish offences under IPC or the SC\/ST Act and highlighting mala fide intent behind the prosecution.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/18\/bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/18\/bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/18\/bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/16-year-old-case-against-lawyer.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/16-year-old-case-against-lawyer.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"16-year-old case against lawyer\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/18\/bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bombay HC sets aside 16-year-old case against lawyer, rules allegations fail to meet IPC and SC\/ST Atrocities Act requirements\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7\",\"name\":\"Soumya Yadav\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Soumya Yadav\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/soumya\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bombay HC sets aside 16-year-old case against lawyer | SCC Times","description":"Bombay High Court quashes a 16-year-old FIR against a lawyer, ruling that the allegations failed to establish offences under IPC or the SC\/ST Act and highlighting mala fide intent behind the prosecution.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/18\/bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bombay HC sets aside 16-year-old case against lawyer, rules allegations fail to meet IPC and SC\/ST Atrocities Act requirements","og_description":"Bombay High Court quashes a 16-year-old FIR against a lawyer, ruling that the allegations failed to establish offences under IPC or the SC\/ST Act and highlighting mala fide intent behind the prosecution.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/18\/bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-03-18T10:30:41+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-03-23T04:22:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/16-year-old-case-against-lawyer.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Soumya Yadav","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Bombay HC sets aside 16-year-old case against lawyer, rules allegations fail to meet IPC and SC\/ST Atrocities Act requirements","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Soumya Yadav","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/18\/bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/18\/bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer\/","name":"Bombay HC sets aside 16-year-old case against lawyer | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/18\/bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/18\/bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/16-year-old-case-against-lawyer.webp","datePublished":"2026-03-18T10:30:41+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-23T04:22:19+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7"},"description":"Bombay High Court quashes a 16-year-old FIR against a lawyer, ruling that the allegations failed to establish offences under IPC or the SC\/ST Act and highlighting mala fide intent behind the prosecution.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/18\/bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/18\/bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/18\/bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/16-year-old-case-against-lawyer.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/16-year-old-case-against-lawyer.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"16-year-old case against lawyer"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/18\/bombay-hc-sets-aside-16-year-old-case-against-lawyer\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bombay HC sets aside 16-year-old case against lawyer, rules allegations fail to meet IPC and SC\/ST Atrocities Act requirements"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7","name":"Soumya Yadav","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Soumya Yadav"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/soumya\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/16-year-old-case-against-lawyer.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":215850,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/18\/guj-hc-knowledge-of-the-caste-enough-to-invoke-ss-32v-and-v-a-of-the-sc-st-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":378755,"position":0},"title":"Guj HC | Knowledge of the caste enough to invoke Ss. 3(2)(v) and (v-a) of the SC\/ST Act","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 18, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Gujarat High Court: Umesh A. Trivedi, J. dismissed the present writ petition preferred under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short \u2018Atrocities Act\u2019). This appeal challenged the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court for Atrocities), Dhoraji. Counsel for the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/1200px-Gujarat-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/1200px-Gujarat-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/1200px-Gujarat-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/1200px-Gujarat-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/1200px-Gujarat-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":172504,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/11\/30\/cognizance-offences-committed-sc-st-prevention-atrocities-act-can-taken-special-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":378755,"position":1},"title":"Cognizance of offences committed under SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act can only be taken by a Special Court","author":"Saba","date":"November 30, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi: The Court recently addressed a petition which had been filed for quashing a previous order given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate wherein the CJM took cognizance of offences under certain sections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":258516,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/15\/madam-yadi-aap-chutti-chahti-hain-toh-mujhse-akele-mein-aakar-milein-chh-hc-held-it-not-to-be-a-sexually-coloured-remark-offence-under-ipc-and-sc-st-act-not-made-out\/","url_meta":{"origin":378755,"position":2},"title":"\u2018Madam if you want leave, come and meet me alone’; Chh HC held it not to be a sexually coloured remark; Offence under IPC and SC ST Act not made out","author":"Editor","date":"December 15, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Chhattisgarh High Court: Narendra Kumar Vyas, J., quashed the FIR registered against the petitioner by Respondent 4 at Women Police Station, Bilaspur (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 354(A) IPC and Section 3 (1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The facts\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":282623,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/28\/section-438-crpc-bombay-high-court-abuses-given-on-phone-cannot-be-said-to-be-within-public-view-to-attract-the-ingredients-of-offence-punishable-under-atrocities-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":378755,"position":3},"title":"[Section 438 CrPC] Bombay High Court | Abuses given on phone cannot be said to be within public view to attract the ingredients of offence punishable under Atrocities Act","author":"Editor","date":"January 28, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"When a law-abiding citizen is adopting legal procedure and has gone to the Police Station to lodge a report, but his report has not been taken, then, such a person\/s deserves to be protected. When prima facie the offences are not attracting the provisions under the Atrocities Act, there was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Bombay-High-Court-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":297619,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/25\/whatsapp-status-bombay-high-court-rejects-application-quashing-fir-under-sc-st-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":378755,"position":4},"title":"WhatsApp status should be communicated responsibly; Bombay High Court rejects application for quashing of FIR under SC\/ST Act","author":"Ridhi","date":"July 25, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"A person should behave with a sense of responsibility while communicating something to others and cannot justify the same through limited circulation.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"bombay high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":337371,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/17\/bomhc-refuses-quash-fir-against-people-allegedly-slapped-mp-belonging-to-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":378755,"position":5},"title":"Bombay HC refuses to quash FIR against two people who allegedly slapped a Member of Parliament belonging to Scheduled Caste","author":"Simranjeet","date":"December 17, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"There is sufficient material collected during investigation to indicate that the incident did take place and that slapping \u2018G\u2019 is an offence under Section 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/378755","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67537"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=378755"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/378755\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/378767"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=378755"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=378755"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=378755"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}