AFSHAMASKAR LAIKKHAN PATHAN @ AFSHA FIRDOS UJEDE AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Quashing of FIR under Atrocities Act: Importance of "Public View," Independent Witnesses, and Consistency Between FIR and Supplementary Statements; Partial Quashing Permissible.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:1021-DB
Decision Date: 14-01-2025
List of Laws
The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Code of Criminal Procedure
- Facts: A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the applicants, relatives of the principal accused, Arafat Laikhkan Pathan, based on allegations by Respondent No. 2. The allegations included offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The informant alleged that she was abused and beaten due to her caste by the applicants. The incident stemmed from a relationship between the informant and Arafat, which did not culminate in marriage.
- Procedural Posture: The applicants filed a criminal application in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, seeking to quash the FIR registered against them.
- Issue: 1. Whether the allegations against the applicants attract the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, considering the incident's location and the presence of independent witnesses. 2. Whether the criminal prosecution against the applicants can be quashed partially, maintaining it only for the offences that are attracted. 3. Whether the FIR should be quashed against certain applicants due to lack of specific allegations or inconsistencies between the FIR and supplementary statements.
- Holding: The High Court quashed the FIR against some applicants entirely and partially against others. Specifically, the court quashed the proceedings against applicants No. 5, 7, 8, and 9 entirely. For applicants No. 1 to 4, the court quashed the proceedings only to the extent of offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act, while maintaining the prosecution for other offences.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act to be made out, the insult or abuse must occur in "public view," and there must be the presence of independent witnesses. The court noted that the informant did not state that the incident occurred in public view, and no independent witnesses were presented. The court relied on precedents like B. N. John Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Mahmood Ali Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh to emphasize that crucial facts known to the informant at the time of lodging the FIR must be included in the FIR itself, and any later additions in supplementary statements should be viewed with caution. The court also considered that the FIR was lodged after a delay of 12 days, raising doubts about the veracity of the allegations against some applicants. The court also held, relying on Ishwar Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, that a criminal prosecution can be quashed in part with respect to provisions which are not attracted.
🔒 For Members Only