Bombay High Court
Bandu @ Pandhari S/O Parashram ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 8 February, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 Cr.APL No.94.16 J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.94 OF 2016
1. Bandu @ Pandhari S/o. Parashram Gote,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
2. Pravin S/o. Ramdas Gote,
Aged about 30 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
3. Vitthal S/o. Madhav Gote,
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
4. Vilas S/o. Madhav Gote,
Aged about 32 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
5. Madhav S/o. Nimbaji Gote,
Aged about 60 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
6. Nivrutti S/o. Sakharam Gote,
Aged about 75 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
7. Arun S/o. Ramdas Gote,
Aged about 28 years,
8. Sau. Ratnamala W/o. Pandhari Gote,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
9. Samindrabai W/o. Parashram Gote,
Aged about 65 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
10. Smt. Nandabai Ramdas Gote,
Aged about 50 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
11. Panchafula W/o. Madhav Gote,
Aged about 55 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
12. Kastura Vitthal Gote,
Aged about 28 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
13. Varsha W/o. Vilas Gote,
Aged about 28 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
All are residents of Village Tondgaon,
Tq. and Dist. Washim. ....APPLICANTS
::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 21:16:54 :::
2 Cr.APL No.94.16 J
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Washim Gramin,
Tq. and Dist. Washim.
2. Eknath S/o. Nivrutti Dhadve,
Aged about 47 years,
R/o. At Post Tondgaon,
Tq. and Dist. Washim. .... NON-APPLICANTS
Shri A. S. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicants.
Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the non-applicant No.1/State.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 08.02.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER: AMIT B. BORKAR, J.]
1. Heard Shri A. S. Deshpande, learned Advocate for the
applicants and Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. for the non-
applicant No.1/State.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure challenging the First Information Report bearing
No.130/2015 dated 19.09.2015 registered with the Non-applicant
No.1 - Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections
3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act of
1989"), under Sections 143, 294, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. The First Information Report came to be registered
against the applicants with the accusations that the
accused/applicants abused the non-applicant No.2 in the name of
caste and the accused/applicant No.8 assaulted the non-applicant
No.2. The applicants have therefore, challenged registration of the
First Information Report.
4. This Court on 10.08.2016 issued Rule and granted
interim relief directing not to take coercive steps in pursuance of the
First Information Report No.130/2015.
5. The non-applicant No.1 has filed reply and it is stated
that there is sufficient material available with the prosecution to
implicate the applicants. The Investigating Officer has recorded
statement of complainant and his family members. It is stated that
the applicants have assaulted and abused the non-applicant No.2 in
the name of his caste.
6. The learned Advocate for the applicants invited our
attention to the judgment delivered in Criminal Application
No.95/2016 and submitted that there were cross-complaints
between the applicants and the non-applicant No.2 on various
occasions. This Court in Criminal Application No.95/2016 has
quashed the First Information Report against the applicants where
the First Information Report was lodged at the instance of the non-
applicant No.2 herein.
7. On overall consideration of the First Information Report
and the reply filed by the non-applicant No.1, we are satisfied that
insofar as the allegations in respect of commission of the offences
under the Act of 1989 is concerned, the allegations in the First
Information Report against the applicants are vague in nature. The
non-applicant No.2 has not attributed specific role to any of the
applicants. The allegations against the applicants are general in
nature.
8. Insofar as other offences under the provisions of the
Indian Penal Code are concerned, we find that taking into
consideration the registration of cross-complaints by the non-
applicant No.2 against the applicants and the applicants against the
non-applicant No.2, which have already been set aside by this
Court, it appears that the First Information Report against the
applicants is not legitimate prosecution. We are, therefore, satisfied
that this is a fit case where power under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure can be exercised.
9. Taking into consideration the allegations against the
applicants in relation to the offences alleged against them under the
provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the continuation of
prosecution would amount to abuse of process of Court.
10. We therefore, pass the following order.
The First Information Report bearing No.130/2015
dated 19.09.2015 registered with the Non-applicant No.1 - Police
Station against the applicants for the offences punishable under
Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, under
Sections 143, 294, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed
and set aside.
11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
RGurnule
