Bombay High Court
Maroti S/O Govind Nagarwad And ... vs State Of Maharashra And Another on 12 January, 2021
Bench: T.V. Nalawade, M. G. Sewlikar
Cri. Appln. No. 1823/20
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1823 OF 2020
1. Maroti s/o. Govind Nagarwad,
Age 48 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Saknoor, Tal. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded.
2. Sanjivkumar Maroti Nagarwad,
Age 20 years, Occu. Education
(B.Sc. 2nd year)
R/o. Saknoor, Tal. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded.
3. Raju Maroti Nagarwad
Age 19 years, Occu. Education
(B.A. 3rd year)
R/o. Saknoor, Tal. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded. ....Applicants.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Mukramabad Police Station,
Tq. Muked, Dist. Nanded.
2. Rajeshri w/o. Sadashiv Dinde,
Age 25 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. Saknoor, Tal. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded. ....Respondents.
Mr. A.L. Kanade, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. R.B. Bagul, APP for respondent No. 1/State.
Mr. P.P. Uttarwar, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.
DATED : 12/01/2021.
JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 13:22:38 :::
Cri. Appln. No. 1823/20
2
both the sides for fnal disposal.
2. Present proceeding is fled for relief of quashing of the
proceeding bearing R.C.C. No. 273/2020 presently pending in the
Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mukhed, Tahsil Mukhed,
District Nanded. The case is fled in F.I.R. No. 197/2020 registered at
Mukaramabad Police Station for the ofences punishable under
sections 452, 354 (a)(2), 354 (b), 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal
Code. The F.I.R. was given by respondent No. 2 in respect of the
incident dated 3.9.2020. It is the contention of the informant that at
about 3.00 p.m. on that day when she was present in the house and
other members had gone out, applicant No. 3 Raju entered her
house. According to her, applicant No. 3 frst made inquiry about
other inmates of the house and when he learnt that others were not
at home, he held the hand of the informant, he misbehaved with her
by pulling her clothes. It is her contention that she started shouting
and asked him to leave her alone and in the meantime, her mother
in law and wife of her brother in law entered the house and then
applicant No. 3 ran away. It is contended in the F.I.R. that she
narrated the incident to her mother in law and wife of her brother in
law and then they went to applicant No. 1, who is father of Raju and
applicant No. 2, who is brother of Raju. It is contended that when this
lady made complaint to applicant Nos. 1 and 2 they did not believe it
and they gave threat that they would fle case under Scheduled
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 13:22:38 :::
Cri. Appln. No. 1823/20
3
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
against them. It is contended that on 4.9.2020 one more incident
took place and quarrel took place between the three applicants on
one side and the family of informant on other and then they decided
to give report in respect of the incident dated 3.9.2020.
3. The submissions made and the record show that present
F.I.R. was given on 6.9.2020 and the crime at C.R. No. 197/2020
came to be registered. On the same day, report was given by
applicant No. 3 Raju against the members of the family of informant
of the present matter and the crime came to be registered at C.R.
No. 196/2020 for the ofences punishable under sections 354-B, 294,
149 etc. of Indian Penal Code and sections 3 (1)(r), 3 (2)(v) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989. In that F.I.R., incident dated 4.9.2020 is described.
4. The submissions made and the record show that there is
some dispute between the two families, but that had started
recently. Ordinarily a lady would not make false allegations which
may involve her character and so, at this stage, it cannot be said
that informant has made false allegations against applicant No. 3.
5. Even if the allegations of informant are considered as
they are, they cannot make out case of molestation as against
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/02/2021 13:22:38 :::
Cri. Appln. No. 1823/20
4
applicant Nos. 1 and 2. If applicant Nos. 1 and 2 had not believed the
version given by informant, that cannot amount to ofence. In view of
these circumstances, this Court holds that relief needs to be given to
applicant Nos. 1 and 2, but not to applicant No. 3. When this Court
expressed that no relief can be given to applicant No. 3, the learned
counsel for applicant No. 3 on instruction submitted that he wants to
withdraw the proceeding of applicant No. 3. So, the following order.
ORDER
I. Application of applicant Nos. 1 and 2 is allowed. Relief
is granted to them in terms of prayer clause 'F'.
II. Application of applicant No. 3 is disposed of as
withdrawn.
Rule is made absolute in those terms.
[ M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
ssc/
