Sandeep Krushnarao Sote vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3832 Bom

 Judgment                                     1                                  apl770.15.odt




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

                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 770/2015


          Sandeep Krushnarao Sote,
          Aged about 48 years, Occ. Farmer,
          R/o. Dharwada, Tq. Tiosa,
          Dist. Amravati
                                                                          .... APPLICANT

                                        // VERSUS //

 1]       State of Maharashtra,
          Through Police Station Officer
          Of P.S. Kurha, Tq. & Dist. Amravati

 2]       Sau. Durgabai Ambadas Taktode,
          Aged 45 years, R/o. Dharwada,
          Tq. Tiwasa & Dist. Amravati
                                                               .... NON-APPLICANT(S)

  *******************************************************************
         Ms. D. Joshi, Adv h/f Dr. R.S. Sirpurkar, Adv for the applicant
               Shri S.D. Sirpurkar, APP for the non-applicant no.1
     Ms. S.P. Deshpande, Advocate (appointed) for the non-applicant no. 2
  *******************************************************************

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

MARCH 02, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)

1] Heard.

2] By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, the applicant has challenged registration of F.I.R.

 ANSARI




  Judgment                                  2                                apl770.15.odt

No. 3102/2015 registered with the non-applicant no. 1 - Police Station for

the offences punishable under Sections 354, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

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

3] The first information report came to be registered against the

applicant on 06/05/2015 with the accusations that the applicant hurled

abuses in the name of caste of the non-applicant no. 2 and also abused the

non-applicant no. 2. It is also alleged that the applicant had threatened to kill

the son of the non-applicant no. 2.

4] The applicant has therefore filed the present application. This

Court on 23/10/2015 issued notices to the non-applicants and granted

interim protection directing that no coercive steps be taken against the

applicant and on 08/06/2016, this Court issued Rule confirming the interim

protection granted earlier.

5] The non-applicant no. 1 in pursuance of the notice issued by

this Court has filed reply and has stated that the applicant had abused the

son of the non-applicant no. 2 in a filthy language and also threatened with

dire consequences. It is further stated that after the investigation started, the

offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989 was added against the

ANSARI

Judgment 3 apl770.15.odt

applicant. It is further stated that the Investigating Officer has recorded the

statements of the complainant and her husband and the investigation is in

progress.

6] The non-applicant no. 2 has filed her reply and has stated that

on 04/05/2015, the non-applicant no. 2 was working in the field of the

applicant. At that time, the applicant abused the non-applicant no. 2 in the

name of her caste and also threatened to kill her. It is further stated that

initially the police authorities refused to entertain her report but after a

complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police, Amravati on

05/06/2015, the first information report came to be registered against the

applicant. She therefore prays that the application deserves to be dismissed.

7] We have carefully considered the allegations in the first

information report. Insofar as the allegations in relation to the offences under

Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989 are concerned, on scrutiny

of the allegations, we find that the allegations are vague in nature. There are

no details mentioned in the first information report which fulfill the

ingredients of the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Act of

1989. As far as the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code

alleged against the applicant is concerned, from the allegations made in the

first information report, we do not find that the applicant had assaulted or

ANSARI

Judgment 4 apl770.15.odt

used criminal force against the non-applicant no. 2 with an intention to

outrage her modesty. The allegations against the applicant is that the

applicant has threatened to kill the son of the non-applicant no. 2. In the

reply filed before this Court, the non-applicant no. 2 has stated that the

applicant threatened to kill her. From the statement in the first information

report and the statements in the reply filed before this Court, we find that

there is inconsistency in relation to the allegations against the applicant. We

are therefore satisfied that the ingredients of the offence under Section 354

of the Indian Penal Code are not fulfilled.

8] The next offence alleged against the applicant is under Section

294 of the Indian Penal Code. We have scrutinized the allegations in the first

information report. From the allegations in the first information report, it

appears that the incident occurred in the property of the applicant. The

allegations in the first information report against the applicant in relation to

the alleged offence under Section 294 is that when the non-applicant no. 2

had been to the agricultural land of the applicant, the applicant met her on

road and abused her in the name of caste as she had filed report against him.

From the said allegation, it cannot be said that the offence took place at

public place since the non-applicant no. 2 had stated that the applicant met

her on road when the non-applicant no. 2 had been to the agricultural land

ANSARI

Judgment 5 apl770.15.odt

of the applicant. We are therefore satisfied that the essential ingredients of

Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code are not fulfilled.

9] Insofar as the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal

Code is concerned, the same being non-cognizable offence, the non-applicant

no. 2 without permission from the magistrate has not investigated the report

in relation to Section 506 of the IPC.

10] Taking overall view of the allegations in the first information

report, the material produced by the applicant and the replies of the non-

applicants, we are satisfied that the ingredients of the offences alleged

against the applicant are not fulfilled. Therefore, continuation of the present

proceedings against the applicant would amount to abuse of process of the

Court.

11] Hence, the following order is passed :-

F.I.R. No. 3102/2015 dated 06/05/2015 registered with the

non-applicant no. 1 - Police Station for the offences punishable

under Sections 354, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and

Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the

ANSARI

Judgment 6 apl770.15.odt

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is quashed

and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

Fees of the advocate appointed to represent the non-applicant

no. 2 be paid as per the Rules.

                   JUDGE                                    JUDGE




 ANSARI