The Bombay High Court quashed a 2010 SC/ST Act case against Virendranath B. Tiwari, with Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe holding FIR allegations lacked offence ingredients under SC/ST Act and IPC, dismissing proceedings.
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court dismissed a 2010 case brought under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act) against advocate and law-college instructor Virendranath B. Tiwari.
Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe found that the allegations did not amount to offences under either the SC/ST Act or the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court said when quashing the matter,
“At face value, the allegations in the FIR and chargesheet under challenge do not disclose any of the ingredients,”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Charge: “Abuse Inside Home Not Within Public View”
The FIR was filed by Chitra Shalunkhe, a teacher at Siddharth Law College in Mumbai. She alleged that in June 2007 Tiwari accused her of using fake certificates and struck her with an umbrella. The Mumbai police registered an offence under Section 324 IPC for assault and also invoked provisions of the SC/ST Act.
Tiwari, representing himself, told the Court that Shalunkhe had lodged three successive complaints under the SC/ST Act in retaliation after he questioned her eligibility for a reserved post and her academic credentials. He pointed out that he had already been acquitted or discharged in two earlier SC/ST matters based on similar claims.
Shalunkhe’s counsel, Rizwan Merchant, conceded that the FIR lacked any caste-based humiliation, rendering Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act inapplicable. He nonetheless maintained that Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, together with sections 323 (causing hurt) and 354 (outraging modesty) of the IPC, should stand.
Justice Bhobe observed that mere awareness of the complainant’s caste does not suffice, and the record did not demonstrate any insult or intimidation on account of caste or use of caste-identifying language in public.
The judge concluded,
“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,”
The court also held that the alleged umbrella assault did not satisfy the elements required for an IPC offence. Additionally, Justice Bhobe noted that Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act was introduced only in 2016 and therefore could not be applied to an incident from 2007.
As a result, the FIR and chargesheet were quashed, ending the 16‑year legal proceeding against Tiwari.
Case Title: Virendranath B. Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
