1 jg.apl 28.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Criminal Application (APL) No. 28 of 2017
Rajusingh Amarsingh Rathod
Age - 58 years, Occ-Agriculturist,
R/o- Januna (Sonwal), Tq. and
Dist. Washim. .... Applicant
// Versus //
(1) State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Officer,
Washim (Rural), Dist. Washim.
(2) Smt. Sunanda Yogiraj Lathad,
Aged - 30 years, Occ-nil,
R/o- Januna (Sonwal), Tq. and
Dist. Washim. .... Non-applicants
Shri P.S. Patil, Advocate for the applicant
Shri A.M. Joshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant no. 1
Shri Dewani, Advocate for the non-applicant no. 2
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 07-08-2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.) Admit. The criminal application is heard finally with the consent of the parties.
By this criminal application, the applicant seeks the quashing of First Information Report No.343/2016, dated 5-12-2016 registered .....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2017 02:21:19 :::
2 jg.apl 28.17.odt against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X)(R) (S) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The applicant and the non-applicant no.2 are the adjoining neighbours. Both the applicant and the non-applicant no.2 are agriculturists and they own and possess agriculture land which is adjoining to each other. On 27-11-2016, there was some quarrel between the applicant and the non-applicant no.2 pertaining to the alleged illegal electric connection secured by the non-applicant no.2 in her field by taking the cables through the field of the applicant. After the quarrel between the applicant and the non-applicant no.2, both the applicant and the non-applicant no.2 filed counter complaints against each other on 27-11-2016. The applicant alleged that the non-applicant no.2 had assaulted her while the non-applicant no.2 alleged that the applicant had beaten her. The non-applicant no.1 made an enquiry in the matter and filed a N.C. report. It is the case of the applicant that after the applicant made a complaint about the illegal electric connection secured by the non-applicant no.2, the officers of the M.S.E.B. found on enquiry on 1-12-2016 that the connection secured by the non-applicant no.2 was illegal. On 5-12-2016, the non-applicant no.2 again went to the Police Station Washim to lodge a complaint that on 27-11-2016, the applicant .....3/-
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2017 02:21:19 :::
3 jg.apl 28.17.odt had abused her in respect of her caste. According to the non-applicant no.2, she had forgotten to make a mention in this regard in her original complaint dated 27-11-2016. On the basis of the complaint filed by the non-applicant on 5-12-2016, a First Information Report was registered against the applicant for the offence punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In the circumstances of the case, the applicant has sought the quashing of the First Information Report.
Shri Patil, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the non-applicant no.1 has wrongly registered the First Information Report against the applicant for the offence punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is stated that had the applicant abused the non-applicant no.2 on the basis of her caste on 27-11-2016, she would have surely stated about the same in the complaint lodged by her in the Police Station Washim on 27-11-2016. It is submitted that in view of the enmity between the parties, due to the alleged fixing of cables in the field property of the applicant, the non-applicant no.2 had belatedly lodged a false complaint against the applicant on 5-12-2016. It is submitted that after the non-applicant no.2 gave the N.C. report, on the complaints made by the parties, the non-applicant no.2 with a view to take revenge .....4/-
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2017 02:21:19 :::
4 jg.apl 28.17.odt against the applicant, has wrongly filed the complaint on 5-12-2016.
Shri Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the non-applicant no.1 has supported the action of the non-applicant no.1. It is submitted that after the complaint was filed on 5-12-2016, an enquiry was conducted in the matter. It is stated that it was found that the applicant had uttered some words by which he had abused the non-applicant no.2 on the basis of her caste. In the circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought for the dismissal of the application.
Shri Dewani, learned counsel for the non-applicant no.2 submitted that despite taking efforts to seek some instructions in the matter from the non-applicant no.2, the non-applicant no.2 has not responded and, therefore, it would not be possible for him to work out the matter on behalf of the non-applicant no. 2.
It appears on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by the non-applicant no.2 against the applicant on 27-11-2016 that the non-applicant no.2 had stated that the applicant had assaulted the non-applicant with fist and blows and had threatened the non-applicant with dire consequences. In the said complaint made by the non-applicant .....5/-
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2017 02:21:19 :::
5 jg.apl 28.17.odt no.2 against the applicant on 27-11-2016, there is no mention that the applicant had abused the non-applicant on the basis of her caste. Had the non-applicant been abused by the applicant on the basis of her caste, she would have surely mentioned so, in the complaint filed by her with the Police Station Officer on 27-11-2016. It appears that after the officials from the M.S.E.B. found that the non-applicant no.2 had illegally taken connection by fixing the cables in the field of the applicant, the non-applicant no.2 had as a counterblast lodged a complaint on 5-12-2016 stating therein that on 27-11-2016, she had forgotten to mention in the FIR that the applicant had abused her on the basis of her caste. It is apparent from the complaints filed by the non-applicant no.2 on 27-11-2016 and 5-12-2016 that the non-applicant no.2 has falsely stated in the second complaint that the applicant had abused her on the basis of her caste on 27-11-2016. The filing of the complaint dated 5-12-2016, by the non-applicant no.2 is an after though. In the circumstances of the case, a case is made out by the applicant for quashing FIR No.343/2016 dated 5-12-2016 registered against the applicant for an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X)(R)(S) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
For the reasons aforesaid, the criminal application is allowed. The First Information Report lodged against the applicant, bearing .....6/-
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2017 02:21:19 :::
6 jg.apl 28.17.odt No.343/2016 dated 5-12-2016 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X)(R)(S) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 506 of the Penal Code is quashed and set aside. Order accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
wasnik
...../-
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2017 02:21:19 :::