Gajanan S/O Suryabhan Raut And 2 ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 410 Bom

 Judgment                                  1                                apl447.14.odt




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


                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 447 OF 2014



 1.     Gajanan S/o. Suryabhan Raut,
        Aged about 49 years, Occupation :
        Agriculturist,

 2.     Mahadeo S/o. Suryabhan Raut,
        Aged about 55 years, Occupation:
        Agriculturist,

 3.     Vijay S/o. Mahadeo Raut,
        Aged about 27 years, Occupation:
        Agriculturist,

        All the applicants are R/o. At village
        Wasadi Bk., Tah.:Nandura, Dist. Buldhana.

                                                                  .... APPLICANTS.

                                   // VERSUS //


 1.    The State of Maharashtra,
       through Police Station Officer,
       Pimpalgaon Raja Police Station,
       Dist. Buldhana.

 2.    Sunil S/o. Laxmanrao Wakode,
       Aged about 38 years, Occupation:
       Agriculturist, R/o.at village Wasadi Bk.
       Tah. Nandura, Dist. Buldhana
                                                            .... NON-APPLICANTS.

  ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri N.B.Kalwaghe, Advocate for Applicants.
 Ms Mayuri Deshmukh, A.P.P. for Non-applicant No.1/State.
 Ms Divya Joshi, Adv. h/f. Shri S.V.Sirpurkar, Adv. for Non-applicant No.2.
 ___________________________________________________________________




::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2021                      ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 04:45:52 :::
  Judgment                                    2                                apl447.14.odt




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

DATED : JANUARY 08, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Amit Borkar, J.)

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

Criminal Procedure challenging First Information Report bearing Crime No.

3025 of 2014, dated 14 th June 2014, registered with non-applicant No.1-

Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1989") and also under Section

7(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The First Information Report

came to be registered against the applicants on 14 th June 2014 with the

accusations that the applicants hurled abuses in the name of caste to the non-

applicant No.2. It is also alleged that the applicants assaulted the non-

applicant No.2. The applicants have, therefore, filed present application

challenging registration of the First Information Report.

2. This Court on 25th July 2014 issued notice to the non-applicants

and by way of interim relief directed not to take coercive steps against the

applicants. On 18th November 2014 this Court issued Rule and continued the

interim relief only insofar as the offence under the provisions of the Act of

1989 is concerned.

Judgment 3 apl447.14.odt

3. We have heard Advocates for the respective parties and the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

4. Shri N.B.Kalwaghe, learned Advocate for the applicants invited

our attention to the order dated 13 th June 2014 passed by the Civil Judge

Junior Division, Nandura in Regular Civil Suit No.62 of 2014, thereby

directing the parties to maintain status- quo till next date. The non-applicant

No.2 was defendant in the said suit. He submitted that on the very next day

the First Information Report came to be registered against the applicants. He,

therefore, submitted that filing of First Information Report was abuse on the

process of the Court as the First Information Report was actuated by the

order of status-quo granted by the Civil Court. He further submitted that the

alleged witnesses of the incident, mentioned in the First Information Report,

were close relatives of the non-applicant No.2, namely, wife of the brother-in-

law and wife of the non-applicant No.2. He, therefore, submitted that none

of the member from public was present when the alleged incident took place.

He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Swaran Singh ..vs.. State through Standing Counsel , reported in 2009 ALL

MR(Cri.) 260 (S.C.). He submitted that the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex

Court is to the effect that if member of the public has not witnessed the

incident and only close relatives have witnessed the incident the ingredients

of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act of 1989 are not made out.

He, therefore, submitted that the First Information Report deserves to be

quashed and set aside.

Judgment 4 apl447.14.odt

5. The learned A.P.P. and the learned Advocate for the non-

applicant No.2 submitted that the averments in the First Information Report

constitute offence alleged against the applicants. They further submitted that

it is not necessary that the member of the public should witness the incident.

They submitted that there is no substance in the present criminal application

and the same is required to be dismissed.

6. We have carefully scrutinized the contents of the First

Information Report and the copy of the order passed by the learned Civil

Judge Junior Division, Nandura on 13 th June 2014. It appears that there

was a dispute as regards road between the agricultural fields of the applicant

and the non-applicant No.2. From the averments in the temporary injunction

application, it appears that there was dispute as regards ingress and egress

of the applicant and the non-applicant No.2. In the above backdrop, the

learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Nandura granted order of status- quo on

13th June 2014. The First Information Report came to be registered on 14 th

June 2014 which is next day of grant of interim relief by the Civil Court. In

the above background, we are satisfied that the registration of the First

Information Report was abuse of process of the Court.

7. We have also considered the contents of the reply filed by the

non-applicant No.1 wherein the non-applicant No.1 has stated that Suvarna

Wakode and Sita Wakode had witnessed the incident. The Hon'ble Apex

Judgment 5 apl447.14.odt

Court in paragraph 34 of the case of Swaran Singh (supra) has held as under:

"34. However, a perusal of the F.I.R. shows that Swaran Singh did not use these offensive words in the public view. There is nothing in the F.I.R. to show that any member of the public was present when Swaran Singh uttered these words, or that the place where he uttered them was a place which ordinarily could be seen by the public. Hence in our opinion no prima facie offence is made out against appellant no.1."

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Swaran Singh (supra), we are satisfied that the registration of the

First Information Report against the applicants would amount to abuse of

process of the Court. In so far as remaining offences, which are alleged

against the applicants, are concerned the same being non-cognizable offences

there is no impediment in quashing the First Information Report as the

contents of the First Information Report does not disclose cognizable offence.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs.

Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 in paragraph No.102 has laid

down parameters for quashing the First Information Report. In the facts of

the present case, clause (7) of the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) are attracted.

9. Having taken overall view of the facts and circumstances of the

present case, we are satisfied that continuation of the criminal proceedings

against the applicant would amount to abuse of process of the Court.

Judgment 6 apl447.14.odt

10. We, therefore, pass the following order:

First Information Report bearing Crime No. 3025 of 2014 dated

14th June 2014, registered with non-applicant No.1-Police Station for the

offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code

and also under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Casts and the Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute accordingly.

                             (AMIT B. BORKAR, J)                        (Z.A.HAQ, J)


RRaut..