1 cr-apln-4634-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLN. NO. 4634 OF 2010 Madhu Rameshchandra Patel ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents .... Mr. Sreeniwas Deshmukh along with Ms. Ruchi Madan Adv. for applicant Smt. A.A.Mane APP for State Mr. Khandagale I.O. present .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 28, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2 The applicant-original accused is seeking quashing of special FIR being LAC No. 60 of 2010 registered with Trombay Police Station. The said case is under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to `Atrocities Act ’). 2 cr-apln-4634-10 3 The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that on going through the charge sheet, there is no material to show that an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act has been committed by the accused. To support his contention, he has drawn my attention to the FIR wherein the complainant has stated that on 9.9.2010 he went to BARC Pharmacy to take medicines. He was standing in the line to take medicines. However, as he wanted to answer the call of nature, he went away and after some time, he again came back and stood in line. At that time, the applicant looked at him indifferently and told him why he could not stand in line. The complainant questioned her as to why she was stating so. Whereupon the accused told him that “he (complainant) did not know how to speak to women. ” The case of the complainant is that thereafter, the accused told him that “he belongs to a particular group of people ”. The complainant questioned the accused “what did she mean by group of people and which group ”, whereupon the accused told him that “you very well know which group he (complainant) belongs to ”. 4 From the complaint, it is clear that these are the only words uttered by the accused who is a lady. There is no reference to any caste or any derogatory remarks in relation to caste uttered by the accused. 3 cr-apln-4634-10 From the above mentioned words uttered by the accused, it cannot be said that an offence has been made out under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. By these words, it cannot be said that the accused who is a lady, intentionally insulted or intended to humiliate the complainant with reference to his caste. 5 It is also observed that the complainant was the Chairman of the Republican Employees ’ Federation of Atomic Energy Department. There are many associations of employees in BARC i.e. Scheduled Caste Employees' Welfare Association of BARC (SEWAB), Republican Employees' Federation, Atomic Energy Employee and Workers' Staff Union (AEE&W), National Atomic Energy Employees' Federation (NAFE) and BARC Officers' Association (BARCOA). So the reference could also be to the group of which the complainant is the Chairman or it could also be a reference to any other group i.e. group of people who do not know how to talk to women in a proper manner i.e. the accused might have tried to convey that the complainant is a person who falls in the category of male-chauvinist. 6 There is nothing to show that the accused knew the caste of the complainant and that she uttered the words with reference to his 4 cr-apln-4634-10 caste. The words uttered by her in the facts of this case would not make out a case under 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act. 7 Thus, a case is made out for quashing of the LAC. Hence, LAC No. 60 of 2010 registered with Trombay Police Station, is quashed. 8 Application allowed. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]