Bombay High Court
Namdeo S/O Ganaji Bhagat And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. ... on 11 March, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 Cr.APL No.514.2016-J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.514 OF 2016
1. Namdeo S/o. Ganaji Bhagat,
Aged about 58 years, Occ. - Service,
R/o. Near Water tank, Mangrulpir,
Tq.- Mangrulpir, Dist.- Washim.
2. Asmita W/o. Rahul Khadse,
Aged about 26 years, Occu.- Household,
R/o. Pangri Navghare, Post - Malegaon,
Dist. - Washim.
3. Sudhakar Kisan Ghode,
Aged about 29 years, Occ. Labour,
R/o. Malipura Tq.-Mangrulpir,
Dist. - Washim. ....APPLICANTS
----- VERSUS -----
1. State of Maharashtra through
Police Station Officer, Mangrulpir,
Tq. Mangrulpir, Dist. Washim.
2. Nalinibai Wd/o. Dinkarrao Bhagat,
Aged about 62 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Mangaldham, Mangrulpir,
Tq. Mangrulpir, Dist. Washim. .... NON-APPLICANTS
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Shri A. V. Band, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri N. S. Rao, A.P.P. for the non-applicant No.1/State.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 11.03.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER: AMIT B. BORKAR, J.]
1. Heard.
2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicants have challenged filing of charge-
sheet No.57/2016 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Mangrulpir and consequent proceeding in Regular Criminal Case
No.105/2016 in relation to Crime No.175/2016 registered with the
non-applicant No.1-Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 294, 323, 506, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The First Information Report came to be registered
against the applicants with the accusations that on 02.06.2016 at
around 1.00 p.m. the present applicants demolished the boundary
of agricultural field belonging to the non-applicant No.2 and on
receiving the said information, the non-applicant No.2 visited the
said farm. It is alleged that when she was leaving from the said
agricultural land and proceeding towards Wada, the applicants
abused the non-applicant No.2 in filthy language. It is further
alleged that thereafter, the non-applicant No.2 again came back to
the agricultural land and at that place also, the applicants abused
the non-applicant No.2. The applicants have therefore, filed the
present application challenging registration of the First Information
Report.
4. This Court on 10.08.2016 issued notice to the non-
applicants and granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause-
(ii) and on 20.02.2018, admitted the present application and
continued interim relief already granted.
5. The non-applicant No.1 has filed reply and has stated
that the Investigating Officer recorded statements of witnesses and
has also filed charge-sheet against the applicants. It is further stated
that there is sufficient material against the present applicants which
requires to be decided in trial.
6. The non-applicant No.2 also filed reply stating that
incident took place on Wada Road and applicants abused her in
filthy language. It is stated that the certificate produced on record
by the applicants that the applicant No.1 was working at Office of
the Tahsildar on 02.06.2016 is a got up document and therefore,
prayed that the application deserves to be dismissed.
7. On 11.09.2020, when the matter was called out, the
Advocate for the non-applicant No.2 was absent and therefore, the
matter was placed on 28.09.2020. Again on 28.09.2020, the
Advocate for the non-applicant No.2 was absent and therefore, the
application was adjourned by eight weeks. On 09.12.2020, also the
Advocate for the non-applicant No.2 was absent. On 04.01.2021
also the Advocate for the non-applicant No.2 was absent. On
04.03.2021 and 08.03.2021, on both dates the Advocate for the
non-applicant No.2 was absent. Today, when the matter is called
out, the Advocate for the non-applicant No.2 is absent. We are
therefore, deciding present matter on merits in absence of the
Advocate for the non-applicant No.2.
8. We have carefully considered the allegations in the First
Information Report. The learned Advocate for the applicants invited
our attention to the order passed by this Court dated 13.05.2016 in
Writ Petition No.2749/2016, thereby the non-applicant No.2 was
restrained by an order of injunction from disturbing the possession
of the applicants over the suit property. The suit property is the
agricultural land where the incident started.
9. It is pertinent to note that while allowing the Criminal
Application No.25/2016 between same parties, we have held that
the earlier First Information Report where the incident took place in
the same agricultural land was not public place. It appears that the
non-applicant No.2 was aware about the legal position and
therefore, the present First Information Report came to be
registered. While narrating the incident the allegations in the
present First Information Report are peculiar. The non-applicant
No.2 stated that initially she was at the agricultural land, which is
subject matter of dispute between the applicants and the non-
applicant No.2. Thereafter, she proceeded towards Wada road and
the incident which is alleged in the First Information Report took
place on Wada road which can be said to be public road and again
she came back to the agricultural land which is subject matter of
dispute between the applicants and the non-applicant No.2. The
sequence of events mentioned in the First Information Report shows
that the non-applicant No.2 wanted to implicate the applicants
under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code. To fulfill the essential
ingredients of the said Section, mainly that incident took place at
public place, present First information Report came to be registered
against the applicants. In our view, in view of the order passed by
this Court restraining the non-applicant No.2 from entering the
agricultural field, the non-applicant No.2 could not to have entered
the said field.
10. We have also considered the statements of witnesses
recorded by the prosecution. On scrutiny of the statements of
witnesses, it appears that the said statements are mechanically
recorded and are of similar nature.
11. In view of the peculiar facts, and the civil litigation
pending between the applicants and the non-applicant No.2 and the
earlier First Information Report wherein similar allegations are
made against the applicants being quashed by this Court, we are
satisfied that the present First Information Report lodged by the
non-applicant No.2 is not a legitimate prosecution. We are
therefore, satisfied that the continuation of the prosecution against
the applicants would amount to abuse of process of the Court.
12. We therefore, pass the following order.
The charge-sheet No.57/2016 filed before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Mangrulpir and consequent proceeding in
Regular Criminal Case No.105/2016 pending before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Mangrulpir in relation to Crime No.175/2016
registered with the non-applicant No.1-Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 427 read with 34
of the Indian Penal Code are quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
RGurnule
