No Justification For Slapping Scheduled Caste MP & Uttering Derogatory Words In Public View: Bombay HC Dismisses Plea To Quash FIR Under SC/ST Act
The Bombay High Court dismissed a Petition for quashing an FIR under the SC/ST Act while stating that there is no justification for slapping an MP belonging to a scheduled caste in public view and uttering derogatory words.
The Court upheld the FIR registered by the President of the Maharashtra Pradesh Bahujan Samaj Party under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as well as Sections 115(2), 3(5), and 356 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The Bench stated that the “intention of the petitioners is clearly made out in the F.I.R.”
A Division Bench of Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice Neela Gokhale observed that “there are many eye witnesses who had seen the incident and the members of the scheduled caste were humiliated in public. The intention is clear…it is not a case of malicious prosecution or registration of F.I.R. out of political or private vendetta. There is no justification for slapping of a member of parliament belonging to a scheduled caste, in public view and utterance of those derogatory words. The offences under the said Act are clearly made out. No case for quashing of the F.I.R. is made out.”
Advocate Ashwin Thool appeared for the Petitioners, while Senior Advocate Rajendra Shirodkar represented the Respondents.
The FIR was lodged by the President of the Maharashtra Pradesh Bahujan Samaj Party, alleging that all its executive committee members had gathered during a meeting to announce the new president of the party.
It was alleged that the Petitioners, who were present at the event, acted out of frustration at not being granted tickets to contest the Lok Sabha elections. The first Petitioner allegedly slapped ‘Mr. G’ during the event and, along with the second petitioner, made derogatory remarks referencing two Scheduled Castes, which were heard by many people present at the venue.
The Petitioners argued that the FIR was a result of a political vendetta. They contended that the complaint was motivated by malice and pointed to a cross-FIR filed by the first petitioner alleging abuse and demand for Rs. 5 lakhs by the first informant.
The High Court noted that “there is overwhelming circumstances and material against the present petitioners.” It was noted that several witnesses, including party members and attendees, corroborated the claims made in the FIR.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Neema Sanjay Rangari & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:46916-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Ashwin Thool and Archismati Chandramore
Respondents: Senior Advocate Rajendra Shirodkar; APP M.H. Mhatre; Advocates Nihar S. Ghag, Anil Y. Bansode and Pradeep Shirsat
