Bombay High Court
Amarsinh Shivajirao Pandit vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 July, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
Cri.W.P.Nos. 855 & 856/09
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 855 OF 2009.
1. Amarshinh S/o Shivajirao Pandit
Age: 40 Years, Occu: M.L.A. & Social Service,
R/o Subhash Road, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
2. Dnyaneshwar S/o Bhagawat Lad
Age: 40 Years, Occu: Driver,
R/o Near Old Bus Stand, Georai,
Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed.
3. Jagannath S/o Bahagwanrao Shinde
Age: 50 Years, Occu: Agri., & Zilla Parishad Member,
R/o Khandvi, Tq. Georai,
Dist. Beed.
4. Vijaysinh S/o Shivajirao Pandit,
Age: 32 Years, Occu: Social Service/Business
R/o Subhash Road, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed. ...Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Georai, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed.
3. The Police Inspector,
Georai Police Station,
Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed.
4. Jagannath S/o Arjun Harale
Age: 40 Years, Occu: Driver,
R/o Komalwadi, Tq. Georai,
Dist. Beed. ....Respondents.
Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. R. L. Kute, Advocate for
petitioners.
Mr. R. V. Dasalkar, APP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:00:51 :::
Cri.W.P.Nos. 855 & 856/09
2
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 856 OF 2009.
1. Amarshinh S/o Shivajirao Pandit
Age: 40 Years, Occu: M.L.A. & Social Service,
R/o Subhash Road, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
2. Vijaysinh S/o Shivajirao Pandit,
Age: 32 Years, Occu: Social Service,
R/o Subhash Road, Beed,
Tq. & Dist. Beed. ...Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Georai, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed.
3. The Police Inspector,
Georai Police Station,
Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed.
4. Sunil S/o Deorao Kandekar
Age: 40 Years, Occu: Driver,
R/o Budhavihar, Georai,
Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed. ....Respondents.
Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. R. L. Kute, Advocate for
petitioners.
Mr. S. D. Ghayal, APP for respondent/State.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATED : JULY 21, 2017.
JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
. The petitioners are common in both the proceedings and
similar reliefs are claimed in both the proceedings in respect of
different crimes and so, both the proceedings are decided by
Cri.W.P.Nos. 855 & 856/09
common judgment. Both the sides are heard.
2) Criminal Writ Petition No. 855/2009 is filed for relief of
quashment of F.I.R. No. 180/2009 registered in Georai Police Station
for the offences punishable under sections 341, 506, 34 of Indian
Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
This crime is registered on the basis of report given by one
Jagannath Harale, who belongs to scheduled caste. In his F.I.R., he
has made allegations that on 30.8.2009 at about 14.25 hours when
he, Yudhajeet Pandit, Achut Gopal etc. were present in a jeep and
they were proceeding towards Pandharewadi, their jeep was
intercepted by Dnyaneshwar Lad, petitioner No. 2 by using his jeep.
He has made allegations that then from the jeep of Dnyaneshwar,
the persons like petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 3 and also
petitioner No. 4 alighted and they started giving abuses to him. He
has made allegations that they took the name of his caste which is a
scheduled caste and they gave threat of life to him by saying that he
should not work as a driver on the jeep of Yudhajeet Pandit.
3) The second proceeding bearing Criminal Writ Petition No.
856/2009 is filed in respect of C.R. No. 3049/2009 which was
registered on the basis of report given by Sunil Kandekar, who also
Cri.W.P.Nos. 855 & 856/09
belongs to scheduled caste. He has made allegations that on
30.8.2009 at about 1.00 to 1.30 p.m. when he was sitting on the
platform of Boudhvihar, place of the people and when he was in the
company of Bhaskar Saudarmal, the petitioners of this petition came
there and they started giving abuses by taking the name of his
caste. He has made allegations that they gave threat of life by
saying that he should not participate in election campaign which was
started by opposite side.
5) The learned Senior Counsel for petitioners submitted that
on that day, the crime at C.R. No. 179/2009 was registered against
Yudhajeet Pandit and his men on the basis of report given by one
Babasaheb Sasane and only to give counter blast to that report, the
aforesaid reports were given against the petitioners. It was
submitted that there was political rivalry between the two groups
and petitioner No. 1 Amarsingh Pandit was sitting M.L.A. at the
relevant time. He submitted that false allegations were made in the
F.I.R. due to political rivalry and so, the F.I.Rs. need to be quashed.
6) The submissions made by the learned APP and the report
collected by him from police show that against the petitioners in the
past also crimes were registered in the year 2007 and they were
even for causing damage to the public property and cases were filed
Cri.W.P.Nos. 855 & 856/09
in the two crimes against them. The submissions made show that
nobody disputes that there are rival groups in that village. Only
because, other group of present petitioners had given report against
the opposite side first in time, it cannot be inferred that the other
side gave report against the petitioners to give counter blast to the
first report. Though it is true that the provisions of aforesaid Atrocity
Act are being misused these days, that does not mean that the
investigation cannot be allowed to be made when the F.I.R. is given
and the crime is registered. That legislation is made to give
protection to the persons of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes
and so, it cannot be presumed at this stage that the F.I.Rs. are in
respect of imaginary incidents. There was political rivalry and there
was the election campaign started by both the sides. When the side
of the petitioners is making allegation that some incident took place,
it cannot be believed at this stage that other side has made false
allegations against petitioners. Thorough investigation needs to be
made in to the allegations in view of the object behind the special
legislation. In the result, both the petitions stand dismissed. Interim
relief, if any, granted earlier is vacated. Rule is discharged.
[SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
ssc/
