Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. Shri Gadkari, the learned APP for the respondent No.1 and Shri Lanke, the learned advocate for the respondent No.2 waive service.

3. The petitioners seek direction for quashing the FIR No.130 of 2007 lodged at Khar Police Station, Mumbai.

4. Some time in July, 2006, the complainant Vidya Bansode came to be appointed in teaching faculty at M/s. R.D. National College at Bandra. A complaint came to be lodged by father of the said Vidya Bansode as well as by the complainant Vidya herself to the Education Officer in November, 2006 making various allegations against the Management of the college. It appears that being dissatisfied about the reaction from the management and the Education Officer, the complainant lodged a complaint with Khar Police Station which came to be registered as FIR No.130 of 2007. The complaint relates to the alleged humiliation caused to the complainant on account of the alleged use of abusive language in the name of caste of the complainant. The said FIR is sought to be challenged on three grounds. Firstly and assuming that the petitioners had made statement allegedly using abusive language in the name and the caste, the complaint nowhere discloses alleged incidents having taken place in public view. Secondly that the complaint on the face of it nowhere discloses the caste of the petitioners which is absolutely necessary to take cognizance of the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter called as the "said Act", and thirdly the complaint nowhere discloses use of abusive language in the name and caste with reference to or against the complainant by any of the petitioners.

12. As regards third ground, the complaint at various places refers to the allegations of use of humiliating expressions with reference to the complainant. It is not that only in case of abusive language used against the people belonging to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe that would warrant prosecution against such persons but even in case of expression used to or with the intention to humiliate the member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe by the persons who are not belonging to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe that could invite prosecution under the said Act. Such expressions used in public view can constitute an offence under the said Act. Hence, we do not find any substance in the last ground of challenge to the F.I.R.