Anup S/O Ashok Bihani And Other vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 2097 Bom

                                                1274.2016 Cri.Appln.odt
                                      1


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1274 OF 2016  

          1.       Anup s/o. Ashok Bihani, 
                   Age: 35 years, Occu. Business.  

          2.       Manoj s/o. Ashok Bihani,
                   Age: 45 years, Occu. Business & Agri.  

          3.       Prabhawati w/o. Satish Bihani,  
                   Age: 50 years, Occu : Housewife

          4.       Namdeo s/o. Raghu Kharade,  
                   Age: 56 years, Occu : Service.  

          5.       Rajendra s/o. Dhondiba Sontakke 
                   Age: 35 years, Occu : Service  

                   All R/o. Rahuri, Tq.Rahuri,  
                   Dist. Ahmednagar.            APPLICANTS 

                            VERSUS 

          1.       The State of Maharashtra 
                   Rahuri Police Station, 
                   Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.  

          2.   Dilip Punja Kasbe 
               Age: 57 years, Occu: Nil
               R/o. Manjoba Nagar, Rahuri 
               Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar 
                                                RESPONDENTS 
                                 ...
          Mr.V.S.Bedre, Advocate for the applicants 
          Mr.S.P.Deshmukh,   APP   for   Respondent   no.1   / 
          State
          Mr.N.N.Shinde, Advocate for Respondent no.2
                                 ...
                                    




::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2017              ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2017 00:44:37 :::
                                                     1274.2016 Cri.Appln.odt
                                         2


                          CORAM:  S.S.SHINDE & 
                                  K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.     

Reserved on : 27.04.2017 Pronounced on : 02.05.2017

JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

1. This Application is filed with

prayer to quash and set aside the First

Information Report vide Crime No.I-18/2016

registered with Rahuri Police Station,

Rahuri, for the offences punishable under

Sections 3 [1], [8], [9], [10] of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

[Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989 [for

short 'Act of 1989'], and Section 506 r/w.34

of the Indian Penal Code and also the charge-

sheet arising out of the said crime.

2. The learned counsel appearing for

the applicants submits that, even if the

allegations in the FIR are taken at its face

value and read in its entirety, an alleged

offences have not been disclosed, and

1274.2016 Cri.Appln.odt

therefore, the continuation of the further

proceedings would be abuse of process of the

Court. It is submitted that, respondent no.2

has lodged the First Information Report out

of vengeance, since his services have been

terminated by the management. It is submitted

that, the Division Bench of the Bombay High

Court, Bench at Nagpur, in the case of State

of Maharashtra Vs. Shashikant s/o. Eknath

Shinde in Criminal Application No.258 of 2013

[APL], decided on July 2, 2013, has taken a

view that when there is grievance about

promotion or any other grievance in relation

to the services, filing the First Information

Report invoking the provisions of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

[Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989, is not

the remedy and aggrieved persons can approach

appropriate Forum for redressal of the

grievance. It is submitted that, in the

present case, already respondent no.2 has

1274.2016 Cri.Appln.odt

resorted to the appropriate remedy for

redressal of his grievance, challenging the

termination of his services, and therefore,

the FIR deserves to be quashed.

3. It is submitted that, the material

collected by the Investigating Officer during

the course of investigation would clearly

show that, the applicants have not committed

any offence which would attract the

provisions of the Act of 1989. It is

submitted that, there is nothing on record to

show that, an alleged incident was taken

place at public place with an intent to

humiliate respondent no.2. The complaint

filed with mala fide intention with ulterior

motive, and therefore, the FIR and the

charge-sheet deserve to be quashed. In

support of the aforesaid contention, he also

placed reliance on the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah

1274.2016 Cri.Appln.odt

Vs. State of A.P. and ors.1.

4. On the other hand, the learned APP

appearing for the respondent-State invites

our attention to the allegations in the FIR

and also the material collected by the

Investigation Officer during the course of

investigation and submits that, an alleged

offences are clearly disclosed, and

therefore, the prayer of the applicants to

quash the FIR may be rejected.

5. The learned counsel appearing for

respondent no.2 invites our attention to the

allegations in the FIR and also accompaniment

of the charge-sheet and submits that, an

alleged offences have been disclosed, and the

Investigation Officer, during the course of

investigation, has collected the sufficient

material and on the basis of it, trial can

proceed. The learned counsel submits that,

when the alleged offences under the 1 AIR 2008 SC [Suppl] 634

1274.2016 Cri.Appln.odt

provisions of the Act of 1989, are disclosed,

and if those allegations get support from the

statement of the witnesses, in that case, the

prayer for quashing the FIR and the charge-

sheet deserves to be rejected. It is

submitted that, whether an alleged offence

has taken place in the public view or

otherwise is a matter of appreciation of the

evidence. In support of the aforesaid

contentions, he placed reliance upon the

following judgments; in the case of Vilas

Pandurang Pawar and another Vs. State of

Maharashtra and others2, in the case of

Bajirao Narayan Deshmukh & Ors. Vs. State of

Maharashtra & Ors.3, in the case of Vasant

Kakasaheb Thorat Vs. The State of Maharashtra

and others in Criminal Writ Petition No.333

of 2006 decided on 3rd July, 2014, in the case

of Gorige Pentaiash Vs. State of A.P. and

Ors.4, in the case of Radhey Shyam Khemka and 2 [2012] 8 SCC 795 3 2015 [3] Bom.C.R. [Cri.] 190 4 AIR 2008 SC [Supp.] 634

1274.2016 Cri.Appln.odt

another Vs. State of Bihar5, in the case of

State of Maharashtra Vs. Salman Salim Khan

and another6, in the case of State of Punjab

Vs. Dharam Vir Singh Jethi7, in the case of

State of Orissa and another Vs. Saroj Kumar

Sahoo8 and in the case of Bachu Das Vs.State

of Bihar9.

6. We have given careful consideration

to the submissions of the learned counsel

appearing for the applicants, learned APP

appearing for respondent-State and the

learned counsel appearing for respondent

no.2. With their able assistance, we have

carefully perused the allegations in the FIR

and also the charge-sheet, accompaniments of

the charge-sheet. Upon careful perusal of the

allegations in the FIR, an ingredients of the

alleged offences have been attracted and

5 [1993] 3 SCC 54 6 AIR 2004 SC 1189 7 1994 SCC [Cri.] 500 8 [2005] 13 SCC 540 9 2014 [3] SCC 471

1274.2016 Cri.Appln.odt

prima facie an alleged offences have been

disclosed. Upon careful perusal of the

material collected during the course of

investigation by the Investigating Officer,

we find that, the statement given by one

Satyadra Wamanrao Teltumbade lends support to

the allegations in the FIR. It is not

desirable to elaborate the reasons on merits

of the contention raised by the parties,

since the same may cause prejudice to the

interest of the parties.

7. In that view of the matter, it is

suffice to say that, prima facie an alleged

offences are disclosed and also the

Investigation Officer has collected the

material during the course of investigation.

In that view of the matter, we are not

inclined to entertain the prayer for quashing

the FIR and the charge-sheet, hence the

application stands rejected.

1274.2016 Cri.Appln.odt

8. An observations made herein above

are prima facie in nature and confined to the

adjudication of the present application.

This order will not preclude the applicants

from availing of an appropriate remedy for

filing the application for discharge.

                                                                           

              [K.K.SONAWANE]            [S.S.SHINDE]
                  JUDGE                    JUDGE  
          DDC