Sunita D/O Premdeo Kumbhare @ ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 21 Bom

                                                              12 apl 472.13 jud.odt
                                              1/6



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

               CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.472 OF 2013


  1. Sunita D/o Premdeo Kumbhare @
     Sunita W/o Satish Pajankar,
     Age : 40 years, Occ : Service,
     R/o, Chandrapur, Tq. & Dist.
     Chandrapur
     At present R/o, D-108,
     Ganga Kunj, Kalas, Pune-15.                               ....         APPLICANT



                                 // VERSUS //



  1. State of Maharashtra, through, Police
     Inspector, Ramnagar Police Station,
     Chandrapur, Dist. Chandrapur

  2. Sunil Dayaram Uikey,
     Age : 42 years, Occ: Police Inspector,
     Vigilance Cell, Scheduled Tribe
     Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
     Gadchiroli, Dist. Gadchiroli.
                                                          .... NON-APPLICANTS

  Ms Trishala Dhail, Advocate h/f Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for the
  applicant.
  Shri T.A. Mirza, A.P.P. for the non-applicant No.1-State.
  ________________________________________________________________

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

DATE : 04.01.2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER:- Z. A. HAQ, J]

12 apl 472.13 jud.odt

1. Heard Ms Trishala Dhail, Advocate holding for Shri Abhay

Sambre, Advocate for the applicant and Shri T.A. Mirza, learned

A.P.P. for the non-applicant No.1-State.

2. The office note shows that the non-applicant No.2-Police

Inspector Vigilance Cell, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Gadchiroli is not served, however, as the non-applicant

No.1-State is the contesting party, we are of the view that service on

the non-applicant no.2 is not necessary, and we proceed with the

matter.

3. The claim of the applicant that she belongs to 'Halba'

Scheduled Tribe is rejected by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate

Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli Division, Gadchiroli. By the order

dated 6th June 2013, the Scrutiny Committee recorded in paragraph

No.12 of its decision that the applicant had suppressed the entries

showing the caste of her father and paternal uncle as 'Koshti' in the

primary school admission register and had obtained the caste

certificate on the basis of false documents. The Scrutiny Committee

directed the non-applicant No.2 (Police Inspector of the Police

Vigilance Cell) to lodge complaint against the applicant in the form

12 apl 472.13 jud.odt

of F.I.R. with the concerned Police Station. Accordingly, the non-

applicant No.2 lodged report against the applicant with the non-

applicant No.1-Police Station Officer, on the basis of which First

Information Report came to be registered against the applicant for

the offence punishable under Section 11(1)(b) of the Maharashtra

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta

Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special

Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of)

Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred as Maharashtra Act

No.XXIII of 2001). Being aggrieved by the registration of the First

Information Report, the applicant has approached this Court by this

application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

praying that the First Information Report registered against her be

quashed.

4. Ms Trishala Dhail, learned Advocate for the applicant

relied on the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court

in the case of Vilas S/o Rambhau Majrikar Vs. State of Maharashtra

reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 4025, relying on which, this very

Bench has passed judgment in Criminal Application (APL)

No.449/2014 [Ku. Waishali d/o Pandurang Nandanwar

12 apl 472.13 jud.odt

(Sau. Waishali w/o Rahul Saolikar) vs. The State of Maharashtra and

another] on 11th December, 2020 and has quashed the First

Information Report registered against the accused therein for the

offence punishable under Section 11(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Act

No.XXIII of 2001. In the judgment given in the case of Vilas s/o

Rambhau Majrikar and Ku. Waishali d/o Pandurang Nandanwar

(supra) it is held that the provisions of Section 11(2) of the

Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 contemplate filing of private

complaint by the Scrutiny Committee or its Authorized Officer before

Court for prosecution of the accused committing the offence

punishable under Section 11(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Act No.XXIII

of 2001, and lodging of report to the Police Station and registration

of First Information Report is not contemplated under the Act.

5. Shri. T.A. Mirza, learned A.P.P. has not been able to make

any submission to counter the legal position as laid down by the

above referred judgments.

6. Hence, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the

above referred judgments following order is passed:-

12 apl 472.13 jud.odt

(i) The First Information Report bearing Crime

No.3121/2013 registered with the non-applicant No.1-Police Station

against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section

11(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001 is quashed.

(ii) It would be open for the Scrutiny Committee to take

further steps as per the decision of the Scrutiny Committee and get

private complaint filed on behalf of its Authorized Officer, as per law.

(iii) Criminal Application is allowed accordingly.

7. We have noticed that such mistake is committed by the

Scrutiny Committee repeatedly in several cases resulting in

frustration of its directions to prosecute the erring parties. The error

is in the decision of the Scrutiny Committee which is directing the

Police Inspector of Vigilance Cell to lodge First Information Report.

The Scrutiny Committee should pass appropriate orders directing

filing of private complaint by the Scrutiny Committee or its

Authorized Officer for prosecuting the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 11(1)(b) of Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of

2001.

8. We direct the Office of the Principal Secretary,

12 apl 472.13 jud.odt

Department of Social Justice, Government of Maharashtra to send

copies of the judgment given by Division Bench of this Court in the

case of Vilas S/o Rambhau Majrikar Vs. State of Maharashtra

reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 4025 and the copy of this judgment

to all the Scrutiny Committees in the State of Maharashtra. The

compliance report regarding this shall be placed on record of this

Criminal Application within three months from today.

9. The office of Government Pleader shall communicate this

judgment to the Principal Secretary, Department of Social Justice,

Government of Maharashtra within 15 days from today.

               JUDGE                                        JUDGE



manisha