Bombay High Court
Baburao S/. Pandurang Karne vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 17 March, 2021
Bench: R.V. Ghuge, B. U. Debadwar
665.20crapln
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
938 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.665 OF 2020
BABURAO S/. PANDURANG KARNE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
Mr A. R. Autade, Advocate for applicant;
Mr R. V. Dasalkar, A.P.P. for respondent No.1;
Mr Pratap Vikhe, Advocate h/f Mr R. R. Karpe, Advocate for
respondent No.2
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
AND
B. U. DEBADWAR, JJ.
DATE : 17th March, 2021
PER COURT:
1. By this application, the sole applicant - accused in First
Information Report bearing Crime No.0049 of 2020, prays for
quashing of the first information report.
2. With the assistance of the learned Advocate for the applicant,
we have gone through the application paper book, have perused the
first information report and the further statements of the victim,
informant and the statement of a co-student. We have heard the
learned Prosecutor as well as the learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of respondent No.2.
665.20crapln
3. The minor girl is a student of the 12 th standard in a college at
Belapur (Bk.), Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. The informant is
the mother of the victim, who has narrated in the first information
report that she is an employee of a Government Residential Primary
Health Center at Belapur (Bk.). She belongs to the Hindu Mahar caste.
Her daughter, the victim, was a 12 th standard Science student in the
college. She is born on 03/01/2002. On 18/01/2020, after the
informant returned home at about 11.30 p.m., she found that the victim
girl was weeping in the house. She tried to coax her into narrating the
reason. She was unable to state anything on account of being
traumatic.
4. On the next date, a co-employee of the informant had visited the
home. The informant narrated to him as to what had happened to her
daughter. Thereafter, the informant took the victim into confidence
and asked her the reason for being distraught. She narrated to the
informant that on 18/01/2020, in between 12.00 to 15.00 hours, her
biology test paper was in progress. The applicant - accused is a
teacher of the Mathematics subject, who was an invigilator. While
checking the class room, he caught one student with copying material
and stood near the bench occupied by the victim. The said student was
asked to stand up and move away from the bench. The applicant is
alleged to have sat on the bench of the victim and while checking for
665.20crapln
further copying material, he touched the thigh of the victim. Noticing
the touch to be inappropriate, the victim started moving away from
him on the bench. The applicant is alleged to have shifted his position
towards the victim so as to continue to touch her. Being shocked by
such behaviour, the victim raised from her bench and then left the class
room midway in her exam. She came home and was continuously
weeping.
5. The learned Advocate for the applicant points out a statement,
recorded on 07/02/2020, of a co-student to contend that the co-student
had stood up from the bench and moved away and she did not find that
the applicant committed any such act, as is alleged. She stated that the
teacher tried to search for copying material and then left the bench and
went away.
6. We find that the statement of the victim was recorded on
22/01/2020, in which she had stated her ordeal and we find that her
statement matches with the statement made by her mother, who is the
informant.
7. The three Judges Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court has
observed in the matter of R. P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960
SC 866, that "cases may also arise where the the allegation in the First
665.20crapln
Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence
alleged"
8. It was held in catena of judgments in the matters of Hem Raj &
anr. Vs. State of Punjab, (2003) 12 SCC 241 - paragraph 21, CBI
Vs. Tapan Kumar Singh, (2003) 6 SCC 175 - paragraph 20, State
of Maharashtra Vs. Ahmed Shaikh Babajan, (2009) 14 SCC 267 -
paragraphs 24 and 26 and Hallu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(1974) 4 SCC 300, that a first information report is merely a procedure
to set the criminal law in motion. A first information statement under
Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should contain
allegations as regards commission of a cognizable offence and need
not necessarily be given by a victim or even by the eye-witnesses.
9. In CBI Vs. Tapan Kumar (supra), the Honourable Apex Court
held that a first information report is to be tendered to the SHO of a
Police Station so as to set the criminal law in motion and it need not
give all the ingredients of an offence, which would be fully disclosed
only after the conclusion of the investigation. It has been held in
paragraph 20 that, a first information report is not an "encyclopedia".
665.20crapln
10. In the State of Punjab Vs. Dharam Singh, 1987 SCC (Cri.)
621, the Honourable Apex Court held that the High Court had erred in
quashing the first information report by going beyond the averments
set out in the first information report. Considering the merits of the
case in Kurukshetra University Vs. State of Haryana, (1977) 4
SCC 451, the Honourable three Judges Bench of the Honourable Apex
Court held that they were surprised that the High Court thought that in
the exercise of it's inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, it could quash a first information report even
before the police had commenced investigation.
11. We are of the considered view that an offence is made out
through the first information report and considering the law
crystallized by the Honourable Apex Court, we do not find this to be a
fit case to exercise our jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
12. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this
application. The same is, therefore, rejected.
(B. U. DEBADWAR, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
665.20crapln
sjk
