Dismissed

Pathan Zafarali Khan S/O Mehmood Ali Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Nov 2021WP/489/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition challenging the rejection of a discharge application, the High Court Bench at Aurangabad upheld the trial court's dismissal. The court held that the petitioner, aware the respondent was a Scheduled Caste/tribale, deliberately used atrocious and filthy language in a representation to humiliate the respondent and his parents sent to various authorities, attracting the Atr

What did the court decide?

The criminal writ petition challenging the rejection of the discharge application is dismissed.

Pathan Zafarali Khan S/O Mehmood Ali Khan Vs the State of… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

(1) criwp489.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

950 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.489 OF 2016

¶4

PATHAN ZAFARALI KHAN S/O MEHMOOD ALI KHAN VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

¶5

Mr.J. M. Murkute, Advocate for the petitioner
Mrs. G. L. Deshpande, APP for the respondent/State
Mr. R. K. Ingole Patil , Advocate for the petitioner

¶6

CORAM:N. R. BORKAR, J.

¶7

DATE:24-11-2021

¶8

P. C.

¶9

. This petition challenges the order dated
19-01-2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Nanded in Special Criminal Case No. 17 of
2015.

¶10

2.The petitioner, who is accused in the
aforesaid sessions case and is facing trial for the
offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, has filed discharge application.
The learned trial court rejected the said
application by the order impugned.

¶11

1 of 5

¶12

(2) criwp489.16

¶13

3.I have heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned APP for the respondent
/State and the learned counsel for the respondent
No. 2.

¶14

4.The respondent No. 2 at the relevant time
was Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Nanded.
According to the petitioner on 09-04-2015 he made
representation to the Municipal Corporation, Nanded
and requested for terminating the services of one
Ratnakar Kukadgaonkar. On the very same day he was
called for hearing on the said representation in the
conference hall of the Municipal Corporation.
According to the petitioner when he tried to inform
actual facts to the respondent No. 2, he was not
heard and instead, he was termed as a blackmailer.

¶15

5.According to him, he therefore, on 10-04-
2015 submitted the representation to the Hon’ble
Governor of Maharashtra and in the said
representation he quoted the incident which took
place on 09-04-2015 and unparliamentary language
used by the respondent No. 2 against him. According
to the petitioner the said representation dated 10-
04-2015 was sent to the respondent No.2 from the

¶16

2 of 5

¶17

(3) criwp489.16

¶18

office of Hon’ble Governor. According to the
petitioner after receipt of representation by the
respondent No. 2 he lodged the report alleging use
of bad language in the said representation about him
and his parents, on the basis of which Vajirabad
Police Station registered the crime against him for
the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.

¶19

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that even if the case of the prosecution is
accepted as it is, offence punishable under Section
3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act would not attract. It
is submitted that to attract the said section, the
requirement is that whoever not being member of
scheduled castes/tribes must intentionally insult or
intimidates with intend to humiliate a member of a
scheduled caste/tribe in any place within public
view. It is submitted that none of the ingredients
of the said section can be said to have been made
out in the present case. It is submitted that the
trial court was, therefore, not justified in
rejecting the application for discharge.

¶20

3 of 5

¶21

(4) criwp489.16

¶22

7.On the other hand learned APP for the
respondent/State and learned counsel for the
respondent No. 2 submit that the petitioner was
aware that respondent No. 2 belongs to scheduled
castes/tribe. It is submitted that thus, the
petitioner had deliberately used the very atrocious
and filthy language not only against the respondent
No.2 but his parents in the representation made by
him to various authorities, with intent to humiliate
him. It is submitted that in such circumstances it
can not be said that Section 3(1)(x) is not
attracted by giving it a restrictive interpretation.
It is submitted that the trial court was thus,
justified in rejecting the application for
discharge.

¶23

8.The contents of the representation made by
the petitioner to Hon’ble Governor read thus:

¶24

T;k ukyhrwu Jh lqf”ky [kksMosdjlkgscklkj[k Hkk-iz-ls-pk- vf/kdkjh fu?krks rh ukyh Hkkjrkpk ,srhgklhd okjlk Eg.kwu tkghj djkok o gk fo’k; fi-,p-Mh- lkBh loZ fon;kihBkauh fopkjkr ?;kok vki.k vkns”khr djkos- la”kks/kuklkBh [kkyhy eqnn;kapk lekos”k dj.;klaca/khgh vkns”khr Ogkos-

¶25

1- ;k ukyhpk iqoZ brhgkl] ;kpk mxe o dks.kR;k eksB;k ukY;kyk ehGrs R;kpk “kks/k

¶26

2- gh ukyh xVkjhph vkgs dh “kq/n ik.;kph vkgs ;kpk “kks/k-

¶27

4 of 5

¶28

(5) criwp489.16

¶29

3- ;k ukyhyk ,srhgklhsd egRo vkgs dk vlsy rj R;kph dkj.ks-

¶30

4- gh ukyh ojpsoj lkQ dj.;kr ;sr gksrh dk] o R;k lQkbZpk dkyko/kh lQkbZ dsY;kuarj ;k ukyhps ln;LFkhrh-

¶31

5- ;k ukyhe/kwu dks.kR;kizdkjps xksM fdaok ?kk.k ik.kh okgrs o gh ,srhgklhd ukyh vktgh vLrhRokr vkgs dk vlsy rj ln;LFkhrh-

¶32

6- ;k ukyhe/;s tarquk”kd dsOgk dsOgk Qokjys xsys] ifj.kkeLojqih lektkP;k vkjksX;koj >kysyk ifj.kke o ;k ukyhe/;s MsaX;q] eysjh;k] ,p 1] ,u 1 lkj[ks tarw gksrs dk; gksrs rj R;kP;koj izHkkoh mik;;kstuk >kyh dk vls vusd eqnns la”kks/kuke/;s ?ks.;klaca/kh vki.k funsZ’k n;kos-

¶33

9.The petitioner has not disputed that the
respondent No. 2 belongs to scheduled castes/tribes
and he was aware about it. The petitioner had, thus,
appears to have deliberately used atrocious and
filthy language in the representation against the
petitioner with a view to humiliate him. Admittedly,
the representation was sent to various authorities.
Considering these facts and circumstances it cannot
be said that Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act
is attracted. In the result following order is
passed.

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i. The petition is dismissed.

¶36

VishalK/criwp489.16

¶37

5 of 5

Pathan Zafarali Khan S/O Mehmood Ali Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pathan Zafarali Khan S/O Mehmood Ali Khan v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhausaheb Rakhmaji Thorat and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Azhar Khan Ajgar Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jameer Dilawar Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dilip @ Rajendra Mansukhlal Bafna Vs Dr. Vasant Shankarrao Mane

Aruna Sega Gavit Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashoka Multiyarns Mill Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata and Others Vs Satnam Trading Company through Prop. Gurdeep Singh a. Rajpal and Anr.