DR. SUBHAS KASHINATH MAHAJAN VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

FACTS:

1. The respondent, a shopkeeper employed by a government college, filed a First Information Report (FIR) against two of his seniors who were accused of writing disparaging remarks in the annual confidential report despite not being members of the SC/ST caste. It was claimed that the officers did this on purpose because of caste prejudices.
2. The two accused were subject to a police action under section 197 of the CrPC, but the two rejected the sentence.
3. Because the two officers are class-1 officers, the Respondent filed a complaint against the Appellant on the grounds that the Director of Technical Education was ineligible to grant or refuse such sanctions and that only the state government could do so.
4. After all this a case was registered under the following sections:-

a) 3(1)(ix)-Atrocities Act

b) 3(2)(vi)- Atrocities Act

c) 3(2)(vii)- Atrocities Act

d) Section 182- IPC

e) Section 192- IPC

f) Section 193- IPC

g) Section 203- IPC

h) Section 219 read with section 34- IPC

    5. The High Court rejected the appellant’s request to have the aforementioned complaint quashed.

ISSUES RAISED:

1. The first issue which was raised was that any mala fide allegation made against officers can be ground for prosecution if such officers were acting within their official capacity?
2. Second issue was that if such an allegation was falsely made what is the remedy for the same?

CONTENTIONS RAISED:

APPELANT:

1. The appellant maintained that the complaint should have been dismissed by the HC since no offence was committed under sections 3(1)(ix), 3(2)(vi), or 3(2)(vii) of the Atrocities Act or under sections 182, 192, 193, 203, or 219 of the IPC.
2. It was claimed that because the FIR was filed more than five years after the appellant’s order was issued and the order itself was invalid, the proceedings could not have proceeded.
3. It was claimed that the offences listed under the Atrocities Act rely solely on the fact of the complaint, which may not be accurate, and that no supporting proof could be discovered. As a result of the person being held accountable without any solid evidence or verification, this imperils the fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution.
4. It was stated that where there is no proof of the material substance, there should be an exercise to stop the use of arbitrary power of arrest, given that there is a preliminary investigation into the reason for the arrest.

RESPONDENT:

1. It was contended that after a legislation is passed, the court does not need to establish recommendations as long as the Atrocities Act’s
2. provisions do not need to be upheld.
3. After taking inference from several cases it was argued that anticipatory bail can be granted where the cases are not amounting to any fabrication.
4. The Atrocities Act was amended on May 23, 2016, and advisory from the Indian government were released on February 3, 2005, April 1, 2010, and May 23, 2016, respectively, outlining the provisions for both general and exclusive special courts.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDGEMENT:

1. After carefully examining all of the arguments, submissions, and evidence presented by both parties, the court concluded that, absent another crime specifically designated as an arrestable offence in place of those listed under the Atrocities Act, no arrest of a member of the public may be made without the written consent of the hiring authority.
2. It was further stated that if the person being arrested is not a public employee, they cannot be detained without the Senior Superintendent of Police of the District authorising it in writing, as long as they are served with a copy of the written permission and the reasons for it both before the court and to the person being detained.
3. It was said that the magistrate must consider the documented grounds when the arrested person is brought before him or her, and such detention should only be permitted if the accusations are determined to be valid.
4. It was decided that in order to prevent bogus complaints and FIRs, a preliminary investigation may be conducted to determine whether the situation is covered by the Atrocities Act. The entire goal of this is to ensure that the complaint is not a fabrication or scam.
5. Because there was no basis for such an accusation against the complainant, the court determined that the proceedings against the appellant had to be dismissed.
6. This judgment made it clear that there can be no use of the Atrocities Act since there were cases which were being registered just in pretext of caste discrimination.
7. If there is no concrete proof for any allegation that is made against the accused person even during the inquiry of preliminary committee then there is no need for any action against such complaint.
8. Due to caste discrimination, which has existed in India throughout its history and is still present today, the constitution’s framers included provisions protecting such underprivileged classes, and a corresponding act was passed. However, if the privilege granted is abused, precautionary measures must be taken, as was very clearly stated in this instance.

written by RISHITA DASGUPTA (2^nd SEMESTER), ADAMAS UNIVERSITY, KOLKATA.