Bombay High Court quashes SC/ST case since assault, abuse did not occur in public view

The Bombay High Court recently quashed charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act) in a 2022 case, observing that though the incident occurred at a public place, it did not take place in "public view" [Afshamaskar Laikhkan Pathan and Ors v State of Maharashtra].A Bench of Justice VV Kankanwadi and Justice Rohit W Joshi quashed the charges under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(r) of the Act that criminalise caste-based insults against members of SC and ST communities in any place within public view."The report indicates that the spot of alleged incident is a narrow lane. The incident might have occurred in a public place, however, there is no material to indicate that it occurred in public view. Most importantly, it is not even alleged by respondent No.2 (complainant) in the First Information Report or the supplementary statement or even mentioned by respondent No.1 in the final report that it had occurred in public view," the Court said..The complainant, a Hindu woman running a garment shop, had stated in her complaint that she had been in a relationship with a man, who had promised to marry her, but he later got engaged to another woman. Accordingly, a rape case was registered against him. She further claimed that the accused’s relatives hurled caste-based insults at her and physically assaulted her. Accordingly, they were also booked by the police under various provisions of Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST Act.The present petition was moved only by nine people connected to the main accused..The Court noted that allegations against four of the accused - the man's sister, brother-in-law, cousin, and friend pertained to abuses relating to caste and beating.Finding that incident had not occurred in the public view, it quashed the charges under SC/ST Act against them.However, the Court upheld charges of simple hurt and criminal intimidation under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against them."There are clear and consistent allegations against applicant Nos. 1 to 4 that they had beaten and caused simple hurt to the respondent No.2 during the course of the alleged incident on 01.07.2022. We are, therefore, of the opinion that offence under Sections 3(2)(va) cannot be quashed against applicant Nos. 1 to 4," the Court said. .With regard to four other accused, the Court quashed the case entirely. It found there was no material against two of the four accused. On the charges against grandfather of the accused, the Court said there exists "no legally admissible evidence or any material which may take shape of legally admissible evidence at the trial against him."The Court also dismissed the charges against the father of the woman with whom the main accused was engaged, stating that the allegations against him need to be taken with a pinch of salt.Pertinently, the plea relating to the main accused's mother was withdrawn in 2023..Advocates Rohit Patwardhan and S S Jadhav appeared for accused. Additional Public Prosecutor A D Wange appeared for the State.Advocates Harshal P Randhir appeared for the complainant. [Read Judgment]