Sharad vs State of Maharashtra and Others

A.B. Chaudhari, J.—Following are the Prayer Clauses [1] and [2] in the present application:-

"[1] Call for the record of First Information Report No. 3028/2012 dated 19/06/2012 registered by Non Applicant No. 1 (Gadchiroli), Police Station under section 3(1)(10) of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe, Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989.

[2] Upon perusal of same, quash and set aside First Information Report No. 3028/2012 dated 19/06/2012 registered by Non Applicant No. 1 (Gadchiroli), Police Station under Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe, Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989, in the interest of justice."

Facts:

Applicant Sharad Shankarrao Chavan is working on the post of Deputy Director [Research], Scheduled Tribe Certificates Examination Committee, Gadchiroli, and is a Govt. Servant working since twenty-five years. The Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification of caste claims of Scheduled Tribes consists of five members, including the Applicant as a Deputy Director [Research]. The "Mana" caste was recognized as a Scheduled Tribe by virtue of the Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court, confirmed by Supreme Court. In some cases individually examined by him as a Research Officer, the Applicant had given dissenting opinion in respect of some claims for Mana caste for invalidation while discharging his duty as the Member of Five-member Scrutiny Committee. The Mana community people did not like it at all. As a result, on 4th June, 2012, while applicant was working in the chamber of Vice-chairman/Asstt. Commissioner of the Committee, respondent no.2 Devidas Warluji Jambhule along with twenty-five persons entered the chamber without any permission and started asking the officers present there as to why the Caste Certificates of Mana community are not being validated. They also insisted the Applicant to give answer as to why validation was not being given to the applicants. Respondent No. 2 then caught hold of the collar of the applicant''s shirt, assaulted him and also hurled filthy and ugly abuses at him. Another Member Mr. Walvi of the Committee and the Police Inspector of Vigilance Cell Mr. Uikey, who were present there, somehow rescued the Applicant from the clutches of the attackers. Applicant then lodged a report with Police Station, Gadchiroli, and offences under Sections 353, 332 and 504, Indian Penal Code, were registered against respondent no.2 and others vide Crime No. 63/12 dated 4th June, 2012. The investigation started pursuant to lodgment of FIR.

However, surprisingly enough, the respondent no.2, who is accused in the report lodged by the Applicant, lodged a report after six days on 10th June, 2012 against the applicant, which was registered on 19th June, 2012, for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, vide FIR No. 3028/2012 in respect of the incident of 4th June, 2012. Higher officers of the applicant also made representation to the District Superintendent of Police against the said mala fide action of respondent no.2 in lodging the FIR; but somehow the FIR stands registered against the applicant.

Arguments :

Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that the FIR registered against the applicant, lodged by respondent no.2 on 10th June, 2012 is clearly afterthought and with a view to misuse the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in the light of the background that applicant had lodged an FIR against respondent no.2, the leader of Mana community, and others for the assault made on him. The clear intention for lodgment of FIR against the Applicant was by way of counter-blast. Even perusal of the FIR lodged by the respondent no.2 shows that the real grievance of the respondent no.2 was that applicant was putting legal subterfuge for denying clearance to the Certificates of Scheduled Tribe for Mana community people which cases were pending before the Committee for scrutiny. He, therefore, submitted that being one of the Members of the five member Committee, the Applicant has to act judicially and he cannot be expected to take a decision in the manner wished by respondent no.2 or his community members. The Caste Scrutiny Committee consists of five members and the opinion of the applicant is not final, but is to be considered in accordance with the adjudicatory process of the Committee. Respondent no.2, thus, by way of pressure tactics and in order to take revenge against the applicant and with a view to pressurize the applicant, lodged an FIR in the name of caste. Even otherwise, perusal of the FIR shows that no offence is made out.

Per contra, the non-applicants opposed the application and prayed for dismissal thereof.

Consideration :

We have seen the entire record. We have perused the First Information Reports lodged by the applicant as well as Respondent No. 2. We have given our conscious consideration to the entire matter.

The facts in the present case are tell-telling. The applicant is a senior officer and a Member on research side of the Caste Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste claims of Scheduled Tribes. The opinion of the Applicant as a Member of the Caste Scrutiny Committee does not have any finality, as the Committee, as such, is required to consider the entire matter, including the opinion of the Research Officer like the Applicant and then come to a conclusion. It appears from the FIR lodged by the applicant that respondent no.2 and his twenty-five party workers or community persons barged their entry on 4th June, 2012 into the office of the Deputy Director in the presence of Police Inspector [Vigilance Cell] Shri Uikey and other higher officers, talked to him in insulting language, and also caught hold of his collar of the shirt, had torn it and also manhandled, assaulted him and gave filthy abuses to him. Police Inspector [Vigilance] present there Shri Uikey mediated and saved the applicant from further assault and thereafter officers were required to call the Police Bandobast. Offences were registered against respondent no.2 and his accomplices.

The respondent no.2 and his accomplices realized that they would face arrest and further consequences. It appears that after deep thinking for about six days from 4th June, 2012, the respondent no.2 decided to lodge a report to the Police Station in respect of the incident of 4th June, 2012 itself with a view to take undue advantage of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He then lodged a report accordingly, saying that he and others were abused/insulted by the applicant in the name of their caste [Scheduled Tribe].

It is in this background, the FIR, that was made on 10th June, 2012, registered on 19th June, 2012, will have to be viewed. He did not lodge any report on 4th June, 2012 itself, but lodged it on 10th June, 2012, which was registered against the applicant on 19th June, 2012 by the police. The object of lodging the FIR by the respondent no.2 was obvious, i.e., to pressurize the applicant to withdraw his report by bringing him to his knees and to browbeat the entire Caste Scrutiny Committee, whose function is to adjudicate and pass quasi judicial orders. It is significant to note that the orders are final under the Act and can be challenged only before High Court. Thus, the job of the committee to declare somebody as a scheduled tribe is of utmost significance and a Research Member of the Committee, i.e., the Applicant who was manhandled and assaulted by twenty-five persons led by respondent no.2, cannot be asked to fend for himself and allowed to be left alone and without any support from the State machinery.

The function of the Scrutiny Committee is very important and difficult as well to find out who is a Scheduled Tribe and who is not. In the present scenario, it has assumed multiple proportion. No appeal is provided against its decision and as stated earlier, the remedy is to approach via extraordinary writ jurisdiction. In our opinion, it will be destructive of ''rule of law'' if the vested interests like the respondent no.2 are allowed to browbeat the judicial, quasi judicial officers like the applicant or the members of the Caste Scrutiny Committee or to put them under trepidation and/or to bring them down on their knees to act according to their wishes, whims and fancies.

We are fully convinced that the FIR lodged on 10th June, 2012 by respondent no.2 was purely out of spite and with a view to browbeat the Committee for obtaining a decision favourable to respondent no.2 and his community members. We cannot countenance such type of brazen acts of respondent no.2 which are certainly in violation of the rule of law. If such actions are not nipped in the bud, the consequences would be of serious nature and the Committees, which perform such an important work of adjudicating the caste claims, would always be under fear. We do not want such a situation to exist. We are, therefore, of the firm opinion that the FIR lodged by respondent no.2 is clearly mala fide with a view to misuse the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and in order to take revenge and with a view to build up a defence against the FIR that was lodged by the applicant earlier on 4th June, 2010.

We hasten to add that such type of complaints for rampant misuse of the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are largely being filed particularly against Public Servants/quasi judicial/judicial officers with oblique motive for satisfaction of vested interests. We think the learned Members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fabric of the society is not damaged or ruined. They must ensure that exaggerated versions should not be reflected in the criminal complaints having the outrageous effect of independence of judicial and quasi judicial authorities so also the public servants. We cannot tolerate putting them in a spooked, chagrined and fearful state while performing their public duties and functions. We also think that a serious re-look at the provisions of the Act of 1989 which are being now largely misused is warranted by the Legislature, of course, on the basis of pragmatic realities and public opinion. A copy of this Judgment is directed to be sent to the Law Commission for information.

That apart, perusal of the FIR dated 10th June, 2012 lodged by the respondent no.2 recites that the applicant Sharad Chavan is a Member of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Committee did not give validity to any person from Mana community as Scheduled Tribe. Proposals for such validity have been pending in the last 4-5 years with the Committee and that is why the officials were asked to give Validity Certificates to Mana community members. Therefore, on 4th June, 2012, respondent no.2 along with some persons of Mana community entered the office of the Committee when other members with applicant were present in the office. Respondent No. 2 stated that he had come with large number of people from Gadchiroli and Chandrapur districts and, therefore, they should take appropriate action for giving validity certificates, whereupon Shri Walwi, Asstt. Commissioner, told them that the information could be given by the applicant. But the applicant, according to respondent no.2, was arrogant and stated that he did not have the proposals only of [Mana community], but of other communities also and would take decision as and when necessary. Thus, the abuse was given in the name of caste and that is the sum and substance of the FIR.

In the first place, there is no caste by name , nor the same is claimed even by the informant - respondent no.2. Therefore, ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are not at all satisfied. That apart, we have already held that the allegations in the impugned FIR are absurd and inherently impossible. We have also found that the FIR is manifestly attended with mala fides with ulterior motive to browbeat the Committee and for wreaking vengeance on the applicant and with a view to spite him. We rely on the following parameters from the judgment in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992) CriLJ 527 : (1990) 4 JT 650 : (1990) 2 SCALE 1066 : (1992) 1 SCC 335 Supp : (1990) 3 SCR 259 Supp :-

"24. In State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal this Court in the back...................................................................................................

"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report 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."

"(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."

"(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

For the above discussion, we are satisfied that the respondent no.2 lodged an FIR with the Police Station against applicant purely out of mala fides and in order to give counter-blast. The only aim of respondent no.2 was to pressurize the Committee to put its members in fear and then ask them to give Caste Validity Certificates of Scheduled Tribe and not to dare invalidate their caste claims as Mana Scheduled Tribe. We are fully convinced that the FIR lodged after six days by respondent no.2 in the above manner was false and this Court must act in its jurisdiction under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, as it is found that the FIR lodged by respondent no.2 is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. In the result, we make the following order:-

ORDER

[a] Criminal Application [APL] No. 418 of 2012 is allowed.

[b] Rule is made partly absolute in terms of Prayer Clauses [1] and [2] which are quoted in the beginning of this Judgment.

[c] Copy of this Judgment be sent to the Law Commission, New Delhi.

[c] No order as to costs.