Dismissed¶¶23

Nitin S/O Kumar Lautre v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Bajaj Nagpar Nagpur

Bombay HC8 Jun 2026REVN/72/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nagpur Bench, HC Bombay: Criminal Application (REVN) 72/2026, Nitin Lautre v. State of Maharashtra — challenge to Special Judge (SC/ST Act) order dated 12/02/2026 dismissing S.156(3) CrPC complaint alleging SC/ST Act Ss.3(1)(r),(p),(g),(s) offences over denial of 2022 promotional grade; held: service dispute, no intent to humiliate/intimidate, no insult, ingredients absent, NCSC recommendations not enforceable by Court, no perversity; application rejected (M. M. Nerlikar, J., 15/06/2026).

What did the court decide?

The acts of the non-applicants do not show any intention to humiliate or intimidate the applicant, and no insult is discernible; accordingly the ingredients of the alleged sections are not made out. ¶¶16

Nitin S/O Kumar Lautre vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Bajaj Nagpar Nagpur — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant's challenge to the order dated 12/02/2026 of the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Nagpur, dismissing his complaint under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should succeed. +1 more

¶¶10

Court's answer

The applicant has not challenged his denial of promotion in any Court of law.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

The acts of the non-applicants do not show any intention to humiliate or intimidate the applicant, and no insult is discernible; accordingly the ingredients of the alleged sections are not made out.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

Upon perusal of the complaint, the ingredients of the alleged sections are not made out.ratio¶¶18
Implementation of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes' recommendations is a matter for the applicant to pursue; this Court cannot go into it.ratio¶¶21
There is no perversity in the order passed by the Special Judge; the application lacks merit and is rejected.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Application (REVN) No. 72/2026, High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench (M. M. Nerlikar, J., 15/06/2026): The applicant, an Assistant Professor appointed in 2008 from the Reserved Category who received Unreserved-category benefit at the 2019 promotional grade but was denied further promotion in 2022, challenged the order dated 12/02/2026 of the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Nagpur, dismissing his complaint under section 156(3) CrPC alleging offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(p), 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act against Scrutiny Committee members. Holding: the allegations revolve around denial of promotion (a service dispute); the acts of the non-applicants were not intended to humiliate or intimidate and involved no insult, so the ingredients of the alleged sections were not made out; the applicant had never challenged the promotion denial in any court; the National Commission for Scheduled Castes had closed the case with recommendations whose implementation was for the applicant, into which the Court would not go. Finding no perversity in the impugned order, the application was rejected.

¶1

1 10 revn 72.26

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (REVN) NO. 72/2026

¶4

(Nitin S/o Kumar Lautre Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.)

¶5

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

- - - - Mr. A. R. Fule, Advocate for applicant. Mr. N. B. Jawade, APP for Non-applicant/State.

¶7

CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J .

¶8

DATED : 15/06/2026.

¶9

Heard.

¶10

The petitioner is challenging the order dated 12/02/2026 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Nagpur, wherein the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Code”) was dismissed.

¶11

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2008 from the Reserved Category as an Assistant Professor. Thereafter, for promotional grade, again the advertisement was issued in the year 2019. He applied as an Unreserved Candidate, and his claim was considered. He has been given benefit under the Unreserved Category for promotional grade.

¶12

2 10 revn 72.26

¶13

However, again, he applied in the year 2022 for further promotional grade, however his claim was denied, therefore, he made a complaint to the Scrutiny Committee, constituted to redress the said grievances. However, the learned counsel submits that the Scrutiny Committee has harassed, humiliated and victimized the applicant, and rejected his grievance, accordingly he has filed the application with the National Commission of Scheduled Castes (“Commission”) and a letter was issued on 04/12/2023 by the Commissioner for making an enquiry which was addressed to the Commissioner of Police. However, according to learned counsel, the Commissioner of Police has not taken into account anything and till today, neither an inquiry is initiated nor any report was submitted to the Commission. He submits that, as a last resort, he was constrained to file the complaint before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code stating that the accused persons committed offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(p), 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, the Magistrate was pleased to dismiss his complaint stating that the entire grievance of the applicant

¶14

3 10 revn 72.26

¶15

revolves around the denial of promotion by the nonapplicants. The Court further observed that the said allegations indicate a service dispute which has been given the colour of a criminal case and it is a well-settled principle of law that the power under Section 175(3) of the BNSS (earlier Section 156(3) of Code) is an extraordinary judicial power which must be exercised sparingly and only when the complaint clearly reveals the commission of a cognizable offence.

¶16

After hearing at length, I have perused the impugned order as well as the complaint filed by the applicant and the documents placed on record. It appears that allegations are made against the members of the Scrutiny Committee. The applicant has filed complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code. Upon perusal of the complaint, it appears that the allegations apparently revolves around the denial of promotion by the nonapplicants. The act of the non-applicants herein do not show that the said act was intended to humiliate or intimidate the applicant, so also I do not see any insult. It is necessary to mention at this juncture that in order to attract the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and

¶17

4 10 revn 72.26

¶18

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it is necessary that there should be an intentional act of intimidation or insult being a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes on the part of the accused persons. However, upon perusal of the complaint, I do not find that the ingredients of alleged sections are made out. It is further to be noted that the applicant has not challenged his denial of promotion in any Court of law.

¶19

Even the National Commission for scheduled castes, after considering the case, has closed the case by observing as under:-

¶20

“The case was discussed in detail. The Commission observed that the. VNIT Management has not communicated the reasons for rejection of appointment application to the petitioner till date. Hence, the Commission recommends that VNIT Management may provide a written reply to the petitioner and also satisfy his quarries, Rosters may also be shown to the petitioner. With this recommendation, the case is closed.”

¶21

It is argued by the learned counsel that even the aforesaid recommendations are not followed. However, it is for the applicant to get those recommendations implemented. This Court cannot go into same.

¶22

5 10 revn 72.26

¶23

In view of the above, I do not find any perversity in the order passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Nagpur. There is no merit in the application, hence it is rejected.

¶24

( M. M. NERLIKAR, J.)

¶25

Gohane

¶26

Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 15/06/2026 19:20:29

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 12/02/2026 of the Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Nagpur, dismissing the applicant's complaint filed under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.¶¶10
Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Nagpur · 12/02/2026
Prior proceeding
As submitted by learned counsel: petitioner appointed in 2008 from the Reserved Category as Assistant Professor; applied as Unreserved Candidate in 2019 for promotional grade and was given the benefit under the Unreserved Category.¶¶11
Prior proceeding
In 2022 the petitioner applied for further promotional grade; his claim was denied and he complained to the Scrutiny Committee, which (per counsel) harassed, humiliated and victimized him and rejected his grievance.¶¶13
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed an application with the National Commission of Scheduled Castes; a letter dated 04/12/2023 was issued by the Commissioner for an enquiry addressed to the Commissioner of Police; per counsel neither inquiry was initiated nor any report submitted to the Commission.¶¶13
Prior proceeding
The National Commission for Scheduled Castes discussed the case and closed it, recommending that VNIT Management provide a written reply to the petitioner, satisfy his queries and show the rosters to him.¶¶20
Prior proceeding
As a last resort the petitioner filed a complaint before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code alleging offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(p), 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act; the Magistrate dismissed it.¶¶13
Prior proceeding
In the impugned order the Special Judge observed that the allegations indicated a service dispute given the colour of a criminal case, and that the power under Section 175(3) of the BNSS (earlier Section 156(3) of the Code) is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, only where the complaint clearly reveals a cognizable offence.¶¶15

Nitin S/O Kumar Lautre v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Bajaj Nagpar Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin S/O Kumar Lautre v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Bajaj Nagpar Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yogesh Khushal Gajapure vs Durga Yogesh Gajapure

Rahul Devidas Chaudhari vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Shegaon Gramin Dist Buldhana

Ganesh S/O Raju Solanke vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Sonala, Tq. Sangrampur Dist. Buldhana and Anr.

Sudhir Laxmanrao Ingole vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Anti Corruption Bureau Dist. Amravati

Manjiri W/O Pranjal Rathod vs Pranjal S/O Ramnath Rathod

The State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station Tiosa, Amravati vs Mohan Mandeo Chavhan