Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs.

State Of Maharashtra

Parties:

Appellant- Director of Technical Education in the State of Maharashtra. Original accused in

the case registered at City Police Station for offences punishable under ST Act, 1989 and
IPC.

Respondent 2- Employee of the department.

Facts:

 Respondent 2 filed a First Information Report (FIR) against his two seniors (Non-SC)
who had written adverse comments in the annual confidential report on his character and
integrity.
 The IO applied for sanction against the accused under section 197 of CrPC against the
two to the Director of Technical Education and the same was refused by the Appellant.
The Respondent then filed the present FIR against the Appellant.
 ‘Illegal dealing with the matter of sanction’: According to the complainant, the Director
of Technical Education was not competent to grant/refuse sanction as the above two
persons are Class-I officers and only the State Government could grant sanction.
 ‘Bona-fide order’: The Appellant, after he was granted anticipatory bail, applied to the
High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings
on the ground that he had merely passed a bona fide administrative order in his official
capacity and that the same can’t amount to offence even if erroneous. The HC rejected the
petition. Court held: “The Atrocities Act could not be faulted merely because of
possibility of abuse. It was observed that in the facts and circumstances, inherent power
to quash could not be exercised as it may send a wrong signal to the downtrodden and
backward Sections of the society.”

Statutory references: [As further answered by the Amicus, Shri Amrendra Sharan]

S.NO PROVISIONS OF SC/ST ACT INVOKED IN THIS CASE APPLICABILITY OF THE

PROVISIONS IN THE FACTS
OF THE CASE
1 Section 3: Punishment for offences atrocities- “false and frivolous information
(1) Whoever, not being given by the
a member of a Scheduled Caste or a public servant"- mandatory
Scheduled Tribe: -
(ix) gives any false or frivolous information to any public In this case, the Petitioner has
servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his denied sanction for prosecution
lawful power to the injury or which
annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled clearly does not amount to false or
Tribe frivolous information. Hence case
under this section not made
2 Section 3(2) whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled In this case, there is no
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe- allegation that the Petitioner has
(vi): knowingly or having reason to believe that an offence has caused disappearance of any
been committed under this Chapter, causes any evidence of the evidence. Hence this section not
commission of that offence to disappear with the intention of made out.
screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that
intention gives any information respecting the offence which he
 knows or believes to be false, shall be punishable with the
punishment provided for that offence

(vii) being a public servant, commits any offence under this Since no offence Under Section 3
section, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of the SCST is made out this
which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to section
the punishment provided for that offence. cannot be attracted.
S. PROVISIONS OF IPC ALLEGED APPLICABILITY OF THE
NO. PROVISIONS IN THE FACTS
OF THE CASE
1 Section 182-False information, with intent to cause public A false information should be
servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person. deliberately
-Whoever gives to with an intention to deceive.
any public servant any information which he knows or believes In this case, denial of sanction for
to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be prosecution cannot be construed
likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant- as a false information in
(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not any way. It is an order of
to do or omit administrative authority.
if the true state of facts respecting which such information is Therefore no
given were case is made out Under Section
known by him, or
(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury
or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to six months, or with
fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
2 Section 192. Fabricating false evidence- Ingredients not made out
whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false
entry in any book or record, or electronic record or makes any In the present case, it was not a
document or electronic record judicial proceeding and the
containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, Petitioner has
false entry or false statement may neither fabricated false evidence
appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding nor made any false entry in any
taken by law before a public servant as book,
such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false record or electronic data.
entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause
any person who Mere exercising of administrative
in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to power
entertain an erroneous opinion cannot be construed as fabricating
touching any point material to the result of such proceeding, is false evidence.
said "to fabricate false evidence".
3 Section 193. Punishment for false evidence- No 'false evidence',
Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a hence the possibility of
judicial proceeding, or fabricates false punishment accruing to false
evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a evidence
judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of is ruled out.
either description for
4 203. Giving false information respecting an offence committed- Ingredients not met
Whoever knowing or having reason to believe that an offence
has been committed, gives any information respecting that A mere opinion
offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be of a senior officer in an ACR does
punished with imprisonment of either description for not amount to giving false
a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with information.
both.
5 Section 219. Public servant in judicial The denial of sanction to
proceeding corruptly making report, etc., contrary to law- prosecute the two government
Whoever, being a public servant, corruptly or maliciously servants against whom the
makes or pronounces in any stage of Complainant/Respondent
 a judicial proceeding, any report, order verdict, or decision No. 2 had originally filed an FIR
which he knows to be contrary to law, shall be punished with cannot be construed as making
imprisonment of either corrupt report
description for a term which may extend to seven years, or
with fine, or with both.

Submissions:

A. Learned Amicus

 No offence was made out under section 3(1)(ix), 3(2)(vi), 3(2)(vii) of the Atrocities Act
and also under section 182, 192, 193,203 and 219 of IPC and therefore, complaint should
have been quashed by the HC.
 The FIR (in 2016) was lodged after five years of the order (2011) passed by the appellant
 Jeopardising liberty of a person on an untried unilateral version, without any verification
or tangible material, is against the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
 Referring to Section 41(1)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure it was submitted that arrest
could be effected only if there was 'credible' information and only if the police officer had
'reason to believe' (Section 26, IPC) that the offence had been committed and that such
arrest was necessary.
 Preliminary enquiry may be made mandatory in the context of Atrocities Act in the
absence of tangible material to prevent exercise of arbitrary power of arrest.

B. Counsel for intervenor supporting the appeal

 The intervenor, Sapna Korde, who claims to be a victim of a false complaint, submitted
that Respondent 2 lodged a false FIR against her in 2017 alleging that she, in collusion
with the Appellant pressurised Respondent 2 to withdraw the FIR No. 164 of 2016
registered with Karad Police Station and she falsely implicated Respondent No. 2 in a
sexual harassment case.
 That the Atrocities Act is also prone to misuse on account of monetary incentive being
available merely for lodging a case under Rule 12(4) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. Such incentive may encourage not only
genuine victims but, there being no safeguard even against a false case being registered
only to get the monetary incentive, such false cases may be filed without any remedy to
the affected person.

C. Submissions of Learned ASG Maninder Singh

 That no guideline should be laid down by this Court which may be legislative in nature.
 Relied on decisions of the SC in Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
and Ors. MANU/SC/0732/2012 : (2012) 8 SCC 795 and Shakuntla Devi v. Baljinder
Singh MANU/SC/0407/2013 : (2014) 15 SCC 521 to submit his contention that
anticipatory bail can be granted where no prima facie case is made out.

ISSUES:

 Whether directions can be issues by this Court to protect fundamental right u/A.21 against
uncalled for false implication and arrests
 Consideration of potential impact of working of Atrocities Act by the Court. –
 o Discussion over speeches by Ambedkar and Vajpayee follow coupled with
discussion on secularism as a basic feature of the Indian Constitution.
o Court was of the view that that interpretation of the Atrocities Act should promote
constitutional values of fraternity and integration of the society. This may require
check on false implications of innocent citizens on caste lines.

 Anticipatory Bail – Whether there is an absolute bar to the grant of anticipatory bail

The issue calls for an examination into the validity of section 18 of the Atrocities Act and
S. 438 of CrPC containing the bar against grant of anticipatory bail.

o In the State of Madhya Pradesh v Ram Krishna Balothia case, the Supreme Court held
that Section 18 of the PoA Act does not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It
is further observed that the exclusion of Section 438 of the CrPC from the PoA Act had
to be viewed in the context of the prevailing social conditions, and the resultant
apprehension that perpetrators of such atrocities are likely to threaten and intimidate
victims and prevent or obstruct the prosecution of offenders, if they are granted
anticipatory bail.

The Supreme Court observed that Ram Krishna Balothia may need to be revisited in
view of judgments of this court, particularly Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, and
decided to not refer the matter to the larger Bench as the judgment can be clarified in the
light of law laid down by this Court. Exclusion of anticipatory bail has been justified
only to protect victims of perpetrators of crime. It cannot be read as being applicable to
those who are falsely implicated for extraneous reasons and have not committed the
offence on prima face independent scrutiny.

To support its argument the Court cited provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (TADA Act); Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967; Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999, and Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

o On the issue, it has been concluded that persons committing offences under the Atrocities
Act ought not to be granted anticipatory bail in the same manner in which the anticipatory
bail is granted in other cases punishable with similar sentence. However, the Court
maintains that innocent persons against whom there was no prima facie case or patently
false case cannot be subjected to the same treatment as the persons who are prima facie
perpetrators of the crime. If a person is able to show that, prima facie, he has not
committed any atrocity against a member of SC and ST and that the allegation was
mala fide and prima facie false and that prima facie no case was made out, we do not
see any justification for applying Section 18 in such cases.
o No absolute bar to grant anticipatory bail if no prima facie case is made out (Vilas
Pandurang Pawar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 795 and
Shakuntla Devi v. Baljinder Singh (2014) 15 SCC 521).
o Presumption of innocence is a human right. No doubt, placing of burden of proof on
Accused in certain circumstances may be permissible but there cannot be presumption of
guilt so as to deprive a person of his liberty without an opportunity before an independent
forum or Court. Reliance placed on Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 417.
Innocent citizens are termed as accused, which is not intended by the legislature.
 Accused is entitled to show, if he apprehends arrest, that case of the complainant was
motivated- and if the same is shown, there is no reason that the Court is not able to
protect liberty of such a person.
o The Court accordingly held:

“Accordingly, we have no hesitation in holding that exclusion of provision for anticipatory

bail will not apply when no prima facie case is made out or the case is patently false or
mala fide… In doing so, we are reiterating a well-established principle of law that
protection of innocent against abuse of law is part of inherent jurisdiction of the Court
being part of access to justice and protection of liberty against any oppressive action such
as mala fide arrest. In doing so, we are not diluting the efficacy of Section 18 in deserving
cases where Court finds a case to be prima facie genuine warranting custodial
interrogation and pre-trial arrest and detention.” Pg 68

 Issue of safeguards against arrest and false implications (heavy reliance on Lalita Kumari)

o The object of the Act is to protect the under privileged against any atrocities to give
effect to the Constitutional ideals. Any harassment of an innocent citizen, irrespective
of caste or religion, is against the guarantee of the Constitution. This Court must
enforce such a guarantee. Law should not result in caste hatred. The preamble to the
Constitution, which is the guiding star for interpretation, incorporates the values of
liberty, equality and fraternity.
o The Court observed the need to safeguard innocent citizens against false implication
and unnecessary arrest for which there is no sanction under the law which is against
the constitutional guarantee and law of arrest laid down by this Court.:

 Preliminary enquiry must be held

 Such enquiry must be time bound and should not exceed seven days (in view of
directions in Lalita Kumari)
 Even if preliminary inquiry is held and case is registered, arrest is not a must as
we have already noted
 In the absence of any other independent offence calling for arrest, in respect of
offences under the Atrocities Act, no arrest may be effected, if an Accused
person is a public servant, without written permission of the appointing
authority and if such a person is not a public servant, without written
permission of the Senior Superintendent of Police of the District; such
permissions must be granted for recorded reasons.

The Court finally found merit in the submissions of the learned amicus that the
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPELLANT ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED.

Conclusions:

i. Proceedings in the present case are clear abuse of process of court and are
quashed.
ii. There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the
Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the
complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide. We approve the view taken and
approach of the Gujarat High Court in Pankaj D Suthar (supra) and Dr. N.T. Desai
 (supra) and clarify the judgments of this Court in Balothia (supra) and Manju Dew
(supra);
iii. In view of acknowledged abuse of law of arrest in cases under the Atrocities Act,
arrest of a public servant can only be after approval of the appointing authority
and of a non-public servant after approval by the S.S.P. which may be granted in
appropriate cases if considered necessary for reasons recorded. Such reasons must
be scrutinized by the Magistrate for permitting further detention.
iv. To avoid false implication of an innocent, a preliminary enquiry may be
conducted by the DSP concerned to find out whether the allegations make out a
case under the Atrocities Act and that the allegations are not frivolous or
motivated.
v. Any violation of direction (iii) and (iv) will be actionable by way of disciplinary
action as well as contempt.