Rajusingh Amarsingh Rathod vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5689 Bom

                                                 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/-

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/-

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/-

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/-

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/-

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




                                                                                           ...../-