Mumbai, March 17: The Bombay High Court on Monday quashed a 2010 case against an advocate and law college teacher, Virendranath B. Tiwari, noting that the allegations were insufficient to attract offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act) or the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Court finds allegations insufficient under SC/ST Act
“At face value, the allegations in the FIR and chargesheet under challenge do not disclose any of the ingredients,” Justice Ashwin Bhobe noted while quashing the case.
The FIR was lodged on a complaint by Chitra Shalunkhe, a teacher at Siddharth Law College in Mumbai, who alleged that in June 2007, Tiwari accused her of using bogus certificates and assaulted her with an umbrella.
Accused alleges complaint filed out of personal grudge
Tiwari argued that Salunkhe filed three successive complaints under the SC/ST Act as retaliation after he questioned her eligibility for a reserved post and her educational qualifications. He alleged that the FIR was registered “with ulterior motives and as an act of revenge driven by a personal grudge” and was aimed at causing harassment and humiliation to him.
He told the court that he had been acquitted or discharged in two of the SC/ST cases on similar allegations.
Arguments over applicability of legal provisions
Advocate Rizwan Merchant, appearing for Salunkhe, conceded the FIR lacked caste-based humiliation, making Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act inapplicable. However, he argued that the case under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, along with Sections 323 (causing hurt) and 354 (outraging modesty) of the IPC, should be sustained.
Court cites lack of caste-based intent and legal applicability
The court noted that mere knowledge of the complainant’s caste is not enough and that the material did not show any insult or intimidation on account of caste or use of caste name in public view.
“Considering the nature of the allegations made in the impugned FIR, Virendranath Tiwari, a senior citizen aged 74, is justified in arguing that the proceedings initiated by Salunkhe for the third time are an act of vengeance aimed at causing harassment and humiliation to him,” Justice Bhobe observed.
Also Watch:
The alleged assault with an umbrella did not meet the ingredients of an offence under the provisions of the IPC, the court said. Also, Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act was introduced only in 2016 and could not be applied to a 2007 incident, it added, while quashing the FIR.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
