1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2579/2006 1] B. Chakrabarti, Chairman – cum- Managing Director, New India Assurance Company Limited, 2] A.V. Murlidharan, Director-cum-General Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, 3] V. Devnathan, Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, 4] N. Toppo, Deputy General Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, All Nos. 1 to 4 resident of C/o New India Assurance Company Limited, Head Office 87, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai 440 001. 5] K. V. Rao, Chief Regional Manager, Regional Office, New India Assurance Company Limited, Seminary Hills, Nagpur. APPLICANTS VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Gadge Nagar, Amravati. 2] Shri Vishwanath Gotuji Jamnekar, Resident of Prerna Building, Pawanaskar Layout, Tope Nagar, Amravati, Tahsil and district Amravati. RESPONDENTS .... 2 Mr. A.S. Manohar, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. A.D. Sonak, A. P.P. for the respondent no.1. Mr. S.D. Malke, Advocate for respondent no.2. ...... CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE, J. RESERVED ON 29/4/2008 PRONOUNCED ON 6/5/2008. JUDGMENT : 1] Heard Mr. Manohar, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Sonak, learned A. P. P. for respondent no.1 and Mr. Malke, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2] Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3] By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for short) the applicants seek quashing of F.I.R. dated 20/7/2006 registered at Gadge Nagar, Police Station, Amravati under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( “SC & ST Act” for short) and Section 7 (1) (d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The applicants are holding the post of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, 3 General Manager -cum-Deputy General Manager, Manager, General Manager and Chief Regional Manager respectively of New India Assurance Company Company Limited. Respondent no.2, who is serving as Deputy Manager filed F.I.R. dated 20.7.2006 alleging commission of offence under Section 3 of the SC & ST Act and Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. In the F.I.R. filed the names of the applicants were not mentioned. However, by communication dated 21st July, 2006 the names of the present applicants were furnished to the Officer in charge of Gadge Nagar, Police Station, Amravati as the persons who had committed offences mentioned in the F.I.R.. 4] In the report lodged by respondent no.2, respondent no.2 stated that he belongs to “Mahar caste” and initially he was appointed as Assistant Clerk and thereafter he was promoted in the years 1985 and 1988. In the year 1988 he was promoted as Administrative Officer and was transferred to Pune. He was not allotted the company premises at Sadashiv Peth, Pune by Shri Vinayak Date on the ground that he is Mahar by caste. He further stated that further promotion to 4 the post of Manager which he was entitled was refused to him in the year 2005 but on the contrary from time to time he was transferred from Amravati to Aurangabad and then again to Amravati and thereafter again to Pune and from Pune to Amravati. According to the applicant, at the time of filing of the report, he was serving at Nagpur. According to respondent no.2, the offences under Section 3 (1)(x) of SC & ST Act and Section 7(1) (d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act were committed by the applicants. As stated above, specific names of all the officers, who according to respondent no.2, had committed the alleged offences had not been mentioned in the report dated 20.7.2006 and it was only on 21.7.2006 that the names of the present applicants were furnished to the Officer in charge of Gadge Nagar Police Station. 5] Mr. Manohar, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that even if the allegations made in the First Information Report are taken at their face value no offence either under Section 3 (1)(x) of SC & ST Act or Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act is made out. He further submitted that the First Information Report registered by 5 respondent no.1 is under Section 3 (1)(x) of SC & ST Act and Section 7 (1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, which are not attracted in the present case. 6] Mr. Sonak, learned A. P.P., was called upon to satisfy as to how Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC & ST Act and Section 7 (1) (d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act are attracted in the present case. He fairly submitted that F.I.R. does not disclose any offence under both these Acts. Mr. Malke, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that offence under Section 3 (i)(x) of the SC & ST Act and Section 7(1) (d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act are clearly made out against the applicant and this is not a fit case in which F.I.R. deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7] Section 3(i) (x) of SC & ST Act reads as under:- “Whoever intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view” shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. 6 8] Section 7(i) (d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act reads as under:- “ Whoever insults or attempts to insult, on the ground of “untouchability”, a member of a Scheduled Caste shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than one month and not more than six months and also with fine which shall be not less than one hundred rupees and not more than five hundred rupees.] 9] The allegations made by respondent no.2 in the report lodged by him on 20.7.2006 at Gadge Nagar Police Station, Amravati which have been referred to above, by no stretch of imagination, attract even prima facie Section 3 (1) (x) of SC & ST Act or Section 7 (i) (d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. Moreover, the officer in charge of Gadgenagar Police Station has not mentioned which clause out of the Clauses fifteen of Section 3(1) of the SC & ST Act is attracted in the present case. Perusal of the report lodged by respondent no.2 discloses that no offence either under SC & ST Act or under the Protection of Civil Rights Act is made out against the 7 applicants. Therefore, respondent no.1 could not have registered First Information Report against the applicants. 10] For the reasons aforesaid, the First Information Report No.3090/2006 dated 20.7.2006 registered at Gadge Nagar, Police Station, Amravati is quashed. 11] Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. JUDGE