Mr. Vijay S/O. Govardhan Patkar vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6739 Bom

 Judgment                                      1                             apl787.18.odt



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 787/2018


 1]       Mr. Vijay S/o Govardhan Patkar,
          Age 52 years, Occ. Service,

 2]       Sau. Varsha W/o Vijay Patkar,
          Age 43 years, Occ. Household,

 3]       Ku. Arpita D/o Vijay Patkar,
          Through Guardian Applicant Nos. 1 & 2,
          Age 15 years, Occ. Student

          All R/o. Mahsul Colony, Akola

                                                                  .... APPLICANT(S)

                                    // VERSUS //

 1]       State of Maharashtra,
          Through Police Station Officer,
          Police Station, Civil Lines, Akola

 2]       Ramesh Gotiram Wankhade,
          Age 64 years, Occ. Retired
          R/o. Mahsul Colony,
          Akola
                                                           .... NON-APPLICANT(S)

  *******************************************************************
                Shri R.R. Vyas, Advocate for the applicant(s)
               Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for the non-applicant no. 1
  *******************************************************************

                           CORAM : Z.A.HAQ & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

APRIL 27, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)

1] Heard.

 ANSARI



  Judgment                                    2                              apl787.18.odt



 2]               RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.


 3]               By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, the applicants have challenged registration of F.I.R. No. 203/2017

dated 07/06/2017 registered with the non-applicant no. 1 - Police Station

for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 294 and 34 of the Indian

Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and

the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4] The first information report came to be registered against the

applicants with the accusations that on 06/06/2017 when the applicants

were carrying out the construction of their house, the non-applicant no. 2

tried to intervene and restrained the applicants from constructing over the

area of the non-applicant no. 2. On being restrained from carrying out the

construction, the applicants abused the non-applicant no. 2 in the name of

caste and snatched the gold chain of the wife of the non-applicant no. 2. The

applicants therefore have challenged registration of the first information

report by filing the present application.

5] This Court on 05/09/2018 issued notices to the non-applicants

for final disposal and in the meantime, it was directed that the investigation

may go on, however, charge-sheet shall not be filed against the applicants.

The non-applicant no. 1 has filed reply contesting the application by stating

that during the course of investigation, the non-applicant no. 1 has recorded

the statements of the witnesses which prima-facie prove commission of the

offences by the applicants. It is further stated that the applicants have done

ANSARI

Judgment 3 apl787.18.odt

illegal construction and no space is left by the applicants between the house

of the non-applicant no. 2 and the house of the applicants. It is therefore

prayed that the application deserves to be rejected.

6] We have carefully considered the allegations in the first

information report. It appears from the record that there are cross complaints

filed by the applicants against the non-applicant no. 2 and the impugned first

information report filed by the non-applicant no. 2. It also appears that the

alleged incident took place due to civil dispute in relation to the construction

by the applicants. On careful perusal of the averments in the first information

report, it appears that the allegations against the applicants are vague. There

is no specific role assigned to each of the applicant. In the light of the counter

complaints filed by the applicants and the non-applicant no. 2 against one

another, in our view, the filing of the first information report against the

applicants is not a legitimate prosecution.

7] The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of

Uttarakhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 held as under:

"13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimida- tion with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic con-

ditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of ANSARI

Judgment 4 apl787.18.odt

the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harass- ment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked ju- risdiction of the civil court, or that Respondent 2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that Respondent 2 is a member of Scheduled Caste."

8] For the reasons stated above and in view of the ratio of Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra), we are of the opinion that

continuance of the present proceedings against the applicants would amount

to abuse of process of the Court.

9] Hence, the following order:-

F.I.R. No. 203/2017 dated 07/06/2017 registered with the non-

applicant no. 1 - Police Station against the applicants for the

offences punishable under Sections 392, 294 and 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(r)(s) of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 is quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

                   (JUDGE)                                   (JUDGE)

 ANSARI