Sau. Urmila Laxmanrao Mohankar vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4087 Bom

                                               1                                22-apl-657-15j.odt



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 657 OF 2015

  Sau. Umrila Laxmanrao Mohankar,
  Aged about 45 years,
  R/o. Near House of Kadu,
  Baleshwar Nagar, Near H.B. Town,
  Pardi, Nagpur.                                                            . . . APPLICANT

                         ...V E R S U S..

  1. State of Maharashtra through its
     Secretary, Home Departmental,
     Mantralaya, Mumbai.

  2. The Police Station Officer,
     Police Station, Gittikhadan,
     Nagpur, District Nagpur.

  3. Ku. Nanu Tukaram Dhone,
     Aged about 55 years,
     R/o. Near Mount Everest School,
     Gupta Chowk, Surendragadh,
     Nagpur.                                                        . . NON-APPLICANTS

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri K. S. Malokar, Advocate for applicant.
 Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, A.P. P. for non-applicant nos. 1 and 2/State.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               CORAM :- Z. A. HAQ AND
                                        AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED :- 05.03.2021

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

1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure the applicant has challenged registration of First

Information Report (FIR) No. 3535/2015 registered with the non-

2 22-apl-657-15j.odt

applicant no. 2-Police Station for the offence punishable under

Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 504 and 323

of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The FIR came to be registered against the applicant with

accusations that the non-application no. 3, who is working as teacher

in a school where the applicant is also working. It is alleged that on

08.05.2015 at 7.30 a.m. when the non-applicant no. 3 had been to the

school, there was altercation between the non-applicant no. 3 and the

applicant and it is alleged that the applicant abused the non-applicant

no. 3 in the name of caste. It is stated that in the FIR that abuses

hurled by the applicant in the name of caste against the non-applicant

no. 3 were heard by the employees present in the room. The applicant

has therefore challenged registration of the FIR by filing the present

application.

3. This Court on 14.09.2015 issued notice to the non-

applicants and granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (ii).

This Court on 23.03.2016 issued Rule and confirmed the ad-interim

relief granted in favour of the applicant.

3 22-apl-657-15j.odt

4. When the matter was called out on 23.10.2018, learned

Advocate for the non-applicant no. 3 was absent. On 02.03.2021 also

Advocate for the non-applicant no. 3 was absent. Today, when the

matter was called out in the morning session, Advocate for the non-

applicant no. 3 was absent. Therefore, the matter was called out in the

afternoon session but the Advocate for the non-applicant no. 3 is

absent now. Therefore, we are deciding the application on merits.

5. The non-applicant no. 2 has filed reply and has stated that

during investigation the statement of the witnesses are recorded and

caste certificate of the non-applicant no. 3 alongwith validity certificate

is also collected by the Investigating Officer. It is also stated that there

is sufficient material to show involvement of the applicant in the

offence. The non-applicant no. 3 has also filed reply and stated that on

the day of the incident, the applicant abused the non-applicant no. 3

and therefore it is prayed that the application deserves to be dismissed.

6. We have carefully considered the contents of the FIR. It

appears that alleged incident took place on 08.05.2015. The applicant

had lodged complaint bearing N.C. No. 707/2015, dated 08.05.2015,

wherein it is stated by the applicant that on 07.05.2015 there was

altercation between the applicant and the non-applicant no. 3 and the

non-applicant no. 3 assaulted the applicant with fist and blows.

4 22-apl-657-15j.odt

7. Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. has tendered case

diary containing statement of witnesses recorded by the Investigating

Officer. We have perused the statement of the witnesses. On careful

consideration of the same it appears that the statements of witnesses

are word to word same and are recorded mechanically.

8. Learned Advocate for the applicant is justified in submitting

that there is inordinate delay in filing report against the applicant after

the alleged date of the incident. It appears that the incident is alleged

to have occurred on 08.05.2015 but, report is lodged on 12.05.2015.

9. In view of the word to word similar statements of the

witnesses recorded by the Investigating Agency and delay of four days

in lodging of the FIR raises inference that prosecution launched by

non-applicant no. 3 is not legitimate prosecution. We are, therefore,

satisfied that the applicant has made out case to invoke powers of this

Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are

satisfied that continuance of prosecution against the applicant would

amount to abuse of process of Court.

10. We therefore pass the following order :-

First Information Report No. 3535/2015, dated 12.05.2015

registered with the non-applicant no. 1-Police Station for the offence

5 22-apl-657-15j.odt

punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under

Sections 504 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set

aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

                             JUDGE                                          JUDGE




RR Jaiswal