The Bombay High Court has quashed proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against two men accused of using caste-based slurs during a property dispute, observing that no independent witness corroborated the alleged abuse in a place within public view. However, the Court allowed the criminal proceedings under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to continue.
Justice Abhay J. Mantri passed the order on October 8, 2026, while partly allowing a criminal writ petition filed by Nisar Mohammed Pathan and Salim Makbul Mujawar, who sought to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings against them.
Background
The case arose from an FIR registered at Sangli City Police Station on November 17, 2021. The complainant alleged that the petitioners and six others had arrived at property in his possession, questioned the construction of a corrugated iron compound wall and demolished it. He further alleged that they abused him using caste-based slurs and threatened him.
The police registered offences under Sections 143, 149, 427, 504 and 506 of the IPC, along with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act. Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed.
The petitioners argued that the dispute primarily concerned property ownership. They submitted that one petitioner had purchased the property in June 2020 and that a civil suit concerning the same property was pending. They also pointed out that the independent witness statements did not support the allegation of caste-based abuse.
The State and the complainant opposed the petition, relying on statements from the complainant and his family members. However, they acknowledged that the independent witnesses had not corroborated the allegation of caste-based slurs.
After examining the witness statements, the Court noted that the complainant's wife and sons had supported the allegation. An independent witness, Fazal Umar Pathan, had reportedly seen the demolition of the compound wall but had not stated that caste-based slurs were used.
The Court observed:
"However, none of the independent witnesses has corroborated the allegation to establish that the alleged incident occurred in any place within public view."
Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, the Court held that the material did not prima facie establish the essential requirements for invoking the relevant provisions of the Atrocities Act.
It further observed:
"Therefore, in view of the law laid down in Hitesh Verma (supra), it cannot be said prima facie that the alleged incident took place in a place within public view. Consequently, the ingredients of the offences punishable under the provisions of the Atrocities Act are not attracted."
The Court found prima facie material supporting the allegations under Sections 143, 149, 427, 504 and 506 of the IPC. It therefore declined to quash proceedings relating to those offences.
Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act against the two petitioners. It directed that the IPC proceedings continue in accordance with law and that the matter be assigned to the court having jurisdiction to try those offences.
The Court clarified that its observations were preliminary and would not influence the trial.
