Rajkumar S/O. Deorao Sahare vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2654 Bom

                                                                         1                          Cr.APL No.891.18J

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

                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.891 OF 2018

           Rajkumar S/o. Deorao Sahare,
           Aged about 32 Yrs., Occ. - Service,
           R/o. Shankarpur, Tahsil-Chimur,
           Dist.- Chandrapur.                                                       ....APPLICANT


                                             // VERSUS //


  1.       The State of Maharashtra,
           Through Police Station Officer,
           Bhisi, Tah.: Chimur, Dist.: Chandrapur.

  2.       Dalit S/o. Tarachand Shamkule,
           Aged about 26 Yrs. Occ.-Private,
           R/o. Shankarpur, Tahsil-Chimur,
           Dist.- Chandrapur.                                                       .... NON-APPLICANTS

  Shri R. P. Malviya, Advocate for the applicant.
  Shri T. A. Mirza, A.P.P. for the non-applicant No.1/State.
  Shri S. D. Tatake, Advocate for the non-applicant No.2.
  _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


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

                         DATE            :       10.02.2021.

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

  1.                     Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

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

Criminal Procedure challenging the First Information Report bearing

No.293/2018 registered with the Non-applicant No.1 - Police

Station for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 506, 504 of

the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Act, 2015.

4. The First Information Report came to be registered

against the applicant with the accusations that the sister of the

applicant married with the non-applicant No.2 in the year 2014. It

is further alleged that there was dispute as regards the share of

sister of the applicant and the non-applicant No.2. It is further

alleged that 15 days before the registration of the First Information

Report, the applicant had called wife of the non-applicant No.2 and

requested for mutating her name in respect of agricultural land.

Thereafter, the applicant obtained signature of the wife of the non-

applicant No.2 on the application for mutation. It is further alleged

that on 11.09.2018, when the non-applicant No.2 was sitting

alongwith his friends, the applicant came there and hurled abuses in

the name of caste against the non-applicant No.2 and also injured

the non-applicant No.2. The First Information Report is challenged

by way of present application.

5. This Court on 08.10.2018 issued notice to the non-

applicants for final disposal and by way of ad-interim relief, it was

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

6. The non-applicant No.1 has filed reply dated

03.12.2018 and it is stated that the non-applicant No.2 in the First

Information Report has stated that the applicant did not give share

to the wife of non-applicant No.2/complainant as regards the

agricultural land and thereafter, on 11.09.2018, the applicant

hurled abuses in the name of caste to non-applicant No.2 and also

assaulted the non-applicant No.2 by fist and kick blows on the chest,

back and head and on account of said assault, the non-applicant

No.2/complainant got injured. It is further stated that the

Investigating Officer has recorded statements of friends of the non-

applicant No.2, who were present and they have supported to the

case of the prosecution.

7. We have carefully considered the contents of the First

Information Report. From the allegations in the First Information

Report, it appears that there is dispute regarding agricultural land

owned by the applicant and it was the non-applicant No.2 who was

claiming share in the said land as the sister of the applicant was not

given share by the applicant. From the First Information Report, it

is clear that 15 days before the registration of the First Information

Report, the applicant had obtained signature of the wife of the non-

applicant No.2 on the mutation paper in respect of agricultural land.

8. The learned Advocate for the applicant invited our

attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another , reported in

(2020) 10 SCC 710. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph Nos.13

and 18 has held as under :

"13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation 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 conditions 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 the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. 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 jurisdiction 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.

18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a

person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out."

9. The learned Advocate for the non-applicant No.2 has

invited our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported

in (2012) 8 SCC 795. We have carefully considered the said

judgment. In our opinion the ratio in the judgment of Vilas Pawar

(cited supra) laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is in respect of

the scope of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act of

1989") in the context of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. Therefore, the said judgment is of no help to the non-

applicant No.2.

10. After considering the allegations in the First

Information Report, it is clear that there was dispute between the

applicant and the non-applicant No.2 in respect of agricultural land

owned by the applicant. The alleged incident had occurred after 15

days of getting signatures of the wife of non-applicant No.2 by the

applicant in respect of agricultural land owned by the applicant. In

the backdrop of the said facts, in our considered view, observations

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma (cited supra)

in paragraph Nos.13 and 18 are squarely attracted. In the light of

observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in paragraph Nos.13 and 18

of the judgment of Hitesh Verma (cited supra) we are of the view

that, the First Information Report registered and material against

the applicant does not fulfill the ingredients of the offence under

Section 3 of the Act of 1989. Therefore, the continuation of the

proceedings against the applicant would amount to abuse of process

of Court.

11. We therefore, pass the following order :

The First Information Report bearing No.293/2018

dated 12.09.2018 registered with the Non-applicant No.1 - Police

Station against the applicant for the offences punishable under

Sections 324, 506, 504 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section

3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 is quashed and set

aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

                                          JUDGE                           JUDGE
RGurnule