Sanjay Namdeo Hade And Another vs State Of Mah. Through Pso P.S. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2424 Bom

                                                               32 apl 977.18.jud.odt
                                             1/4



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

                CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.977 of 2018

  1.              Sanjay Namdeo Hade,
                  Aged 44 years, Occ: Business,
                  R/o Buldana, Tq and Distt. Buldana

  2.              Arun Ganesh Taral
                  Aged 26 years, Occ: Business,
                  R/o Dhamangaon Badhe, Tq: Motala
                  Distt. Buldana                                   ....APPLICANTS


                                      // VERSUS //


  1.              State of Maharashtra,
                  through the P.S.O,
                  P.S. Buldana,
                  Dist. Buldana

  2.              Sandeep Janardhan More,
                  Aged about 33 years,
                  Occ: Service,
                  R/o C/o RTO Office, Buldana,
                  Distt - Buldana                         .... NON-APPLICANTS

  Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the applicants.
  Shri N.S. Rao, A.P.P. for the non-applicant No.1/State.
  None for the non-applicant No.2.
  ______________________________________________________________________
                               CORAM : Z. A. HAQ AND
                                           AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATE : 03.02.2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER: AMIT B. BORKAR, J.]

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

32 apl 977.18.jud.odt

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure challenging the First Information Report

No.670/2018 registered with the non-applicant No.1-Police Station

for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 506 of the

Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. The First Information Report came to be registered

against the applicants with the accusations that the applicants

hurled abuse in the name of cast against the non-applicant No.2. It

is further alleged that the applicants obstructed the non-applicant

No.2 while performing his official duty. The applicants have

therefore, challenged registration of the First Information Report by

filing present application. This Court on 16 th October 2018 issued

notice to the non-applicants and by way of ad interim relief, it was

directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants.

4. The non-applicant No.1 has filed reply in pursuance of

notice issued by this Court. It is stated in the reply that the

applicants had abused the non-applicant No.2 in the name of caste

and obstructed the non-applicant No.2 while performing his official

32 apl 977.18.jud.odt

duty. It is further submitted that there is material available with the

prosecution which shows complicity of the applicants in the crime

alleged against them.

5. The non-applicant No.2 has also filed reply and has

stated that there is sufficient material to implicate applicants in the

crime alleged against them.

6. We have carefully considered the contents of the First

Information Report in the context of accusations under the

provisions of the Act of 1989. After having carefully considered the

accusations, we are of the view that there is no specific role

assigned to each of the applicants. The accusations made against the

applicants are joint accusations made by both applicants which do

not specify which applicant had hurled abuse in the name of caste of

the non-applicant No.2. On the basis of vague allegations against

the applicants in the facts of the present case prosecution cannot be

allowed to proceed with.

7. In so far as the allegations against the applicants for the

offences under the Indian Penal Code, prima-facie we are satisfied

that the prosecution should be given opportunity to prove their case

32 apl 977.18.jud.odt

at the time of trial.

8. We are, therefore, satisfied that the continuance of

prosecution against the applicants under the provisions of the Act of

1989 would amount to abuse of process of Court.

9. We therefore, pass the following order:-

(i) The First Information Report No.670/2018 registered

with the Non-applicant No.1-Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Act, 1989 is

quashed and set aside.

(ii) It is clarified that in so far as other offence under the

provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the proceedings in pursuance

of the First Information Report No.670/2018 shall be continued

according to the law.

Rule is made absolute in above terms.

                             JUDGE                             JUDGE
manisha