Bombay High Court
Pandarinath Rajaram Tambatkar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 4 March, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
10 APL 62.16.jud.odt
1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.62 OF 2016
1. Shri Pandarinath Rajaram Tambatkar,
Aged about: 56, Occupation: Service,
Range Forest Officer, Armori,
Tah: Armori, Dist: Gadchiroli. (M.S.).
2. Shri Ashok Vithobaji Meshram,
Aged about: 54, Occupation: Service,
C/o Range Forest Office, Armori,
Tah: Armori, Dist: Gadchiroli. (M.S.).
3. Shri Badkrushna Nathuji Shende,
Aged about: 54, Occupation: Service,
C/o Range Forest Office, Armori,
Tah: Armori, Dist: Gadchiroli. (M.S.)
4. Shri Satish Keshavrao Gajabe,
Aged about: 35, Occupation: Service,
C/o Range Forest Office, Armori,
Tah: Armori, Dist: Gadchiroli. (M.S.)
5. Shri Shrikant Chintaman Selote,
Aged about: 35, Occupation: Service,
C/o Range Forest Office, Armori,
Tah: Armori, Dist: Gadchiroli. (M.S.)
6. Shri Anil Brijlal Bopache,
Aged about: 24, Occupation: Service,
C/o Range Forest Office, Armori,
Tah: Armori, Dist: Gadchiroli. (M.S.)
// VERSUS //
::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2021 01:16:56 :::
10 APL 62.16.jud.odt
2/6
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Armori Police Station, Armori,
Dist: Gadchiroli. (M.S.)
2. Shri. Subash Sudam Kumare,
Aged about: 23, Occupation: Labourer,
R/o Patanwada, Armori,
Tah: Armori, Dist: Gadchiroli (M.S.)
3. Smt. Nirmala Sahu Kumare,
Aged about: Adult, Occupation: Housewife
R/o Karadi, Armori,
Tah: Armori, Dist: Gadchiroli (M.S.)
4. Smt. Mandabai Pundalik Gavde,
Aged about: Adult, Occupation:Housewife,
R/o Patanwada, Armori,
Tah: Armori, Dist: Gadchiroli (M.S.)
5. Smt. Savitabai Sharvan Kumare,
Aged about: Adult, Occupation: Housewife,
R/o Patanwada, Armori,
Tah: Armori, Dist: Gadchiroli (M.S.)
6. Smt. Vanutai Laxman Kumare,
Aged about: Adult, Occupation: Housewife
R/o Patanwada, Armori,
Tah: Armori, Dist: Gadchiroli (M.S.).... NON-APPLICANTS
Shri Manoj K. Mishra, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri S.D. Sirpurkar, APP for the non-applicant No.1/State.
Shri I.G. Meshram, Advocate for the non-applicant Nos. 2 to 6.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 04.03.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER: AMIT B. BORKAR, J.]
10 APL 62.16.jud.odt
1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicants have challenged registration
of the First Information Report No.06/2016 dated 17/01/2016
registered with the non-applicant No.1-Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 354, 504,
427, 363, 368 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The First Information Report came to be registered
against the applicants with the accusations that the applicants
entered the house of complainants and offended modesty of the
women present in the house and also abused the complainant in
filthy language. It is also alleged that the complainant Subash
Kumare was illegally detained by the applicants. The applicants
have challenged registration of the First Information Report by
way of filing present application.
3. This Court on 1st February 2016 issued notice to the
non-applicants and granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer
clause (2). On 21st April 2017 this Court admitted present
application and confirmed interim relief in terms of prayer clause
(2). In pursuance of notice of this Court, the non-applicant No.1
10 APL 62.16.jud.odt
has filed reply and it is stated in the reply that the non-applicant
No.1 on 22.12.2015 received a complaint from the non-applicant
Nos. 2 to 6 wherein they had made allegations against the
applicants including Shri A.R. Dasarwar who is not party to the
present application. It is stated in paragraph 9 of the reply that
the Investigating Agency recorded statement of complainant
Subash Kumare on 30th January 2016. In his statement Subash
Kumare specifically stated that there was no incident of beating
the non-applicant Nos.2 to 6 and he had lodged complaint with
the Police Station by mistake. It is further submitted in the reply
that there is sufficient material available with the prosecution to
implicate the applicants. It is further submitted that allegations
against the applicants are serious in nature and therefore, there
is no merit in the application and same deserves to be dismissed.
4. We have carefully considered allegations in the First
Information Report and the material produced by the applicants
and the non-applicant No.1. On perusal of the material on
record, it appears that the applicants are the employees of Forest
Department and are public servants. It is stated that the
applicants received information about illegal hunting Chital
10 APL 62.16.jud.odt
(spotted deer) at village Karadi and were taking search and
inquiry in relation to hunting of Chital. It is further stated that
while exercising their power conferred under the provisions of
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the applicants had recorded
statements of accused persons and thereafter arrested them. It is
further stated that accused persons were produced before
District & Sessions Judge Gadchiroli on 21st December 2015 and
magisterial custody report was obtained for further investigation
under the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
5. The advocate for the applicants submitted that it is
because of arrest of accused and their relatives on 20 th December
2015, the impugned First Information Report came to be filed
against the applicants.
6. We have carefully considered the statement of
complainant Subash Kumare. The complainant in his statement
has made categorical statement that no such incident as alleged
in the First Information Report took place and he has filed
complaint against the applicants under mistake.
7. On overall perusal of the First Information Report in
10 APL 62.16.jud.odt
the context of the action taken by the applicants under the
provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 arresting the
family members of the complainant and in view of the statement
of complainant Subash Kumare that no such incident took place,
we are satisfied that the continuation of proceedings against the
applicants would amount to abuse of process of Court.
8. We therefore, pass the following order:-
(i) The First Information Report No.06/2016 dated
17th January 2016 registered with the non-applicant No.1/Police
Station for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 448, 354, 504,
427, 363 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set
aside.
Rule is made absolute in above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
manisha
