Bombay High Court
Baburao Manik Renge vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 25 April, 2022
Bench: V.K. Jadhav, Sandipkumar Chandrabhan More
(1)
criwp-839.2020 & 841.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.839 OF 2020
1. Baburao Manik Renge
2. Pawan Baburao Renge
3. Jiwan Baburao Renge Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Police Inspector,
Daithana Police Station,
Tal. & District Parbhani.
2. Santosh Uttamrao Mande Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.841 OF 2020
1. Baburao Manik Renge
2. Pawan Baburao Renge
3. Jiwan Baburao Renge Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Police Inspector,
Daithana Police Station,
Tal. & District Parbhani.
2. Santosh Uttamrao Mande Respondents
...
Ms. P.S. Talekar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.P.P. for respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. R.J. Nirmal, Advocate for respondent No. 2
(appointed)
...
::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2022 09:18:23 :::
(2)
criwp-839.2020 & 841.2020.odt
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
Reserved on : 4th April 2022
Pronounced on : 25th April 2022
Judgment (Per Sandipkumar C. More, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By
consent of the parties, heard fnally at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 in both
the petitions are the same. Moreover, it appears that the
petitioners are seeking quashing of two First Information
Reports and consequent criminal proceedings thereof, lodged
by respondent No.2. Though the crimes are separately
registered, but since the petitioners and respondent No.2 are
same in both the matters, we fnd it appropriate to decide
both these criminal writ petitions by common judgment.
3. So far as Criminal Writ Petition No. 839 of 2020 is
concerned, the petitioners, who are the original accused, have
sought quashing of F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 128 of 2020
registered with Daithana Police Station on 02.07.2020 for the
offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") and
under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
criwp-839.2020 & 841.2020.odt
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "the
Atrocities Act"). During pendency of this petition, charge-
sheet has been submitted and therefore, the petitioners have
challenged the criminal proceedings being Special Case
No.106 of 202 arising out of the aforesaid crime and pending
before the learned Special and Sessions Judge, Parbhani.
Whereas, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 841 of 2020 the
petitioners are seeking quashing of F.I.R. being Crime No. 54
of 2020 registered with Daithana Police Station on
08.04.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 323,
504, 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3
(1)(r) and 3 (1 (s) of the Atrocities Act. In respect of the said
crime, charge-sheet has been fled, and therefore, the
petitioners have also sought quashing of the said charge-sheet
being Special Case No. 97 of 2020 pending before the learned
Special and Sessions Judge, Parbhani.
4. So far as F.I.R. in respect of Crime No.128/2020 is
concerned, it is contended by respondent No.2-informant that
on 01.07.2020 one Datta Narayan Renge with whom he had
acquaintance, had come to village Jamb. At about 6.00 p.m.
on the same day Datta asked respondent No.2 to meet him
and accordingly when respondent No.2 had gone to Post Galli
criwp-839.2020 & 841.2020.odt
at village Jamb to meet Datta, Datta told him that his
application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Court,
and therefore, he was to surrender before Police Station.
When the said talks were going on, all the petitioners came
there at about 6.30 p.m. and abused respondent No.2 in
flthy language by referring his caste. The petitioners started
beating him and also beat Datta for the reason as to why he
became witness in the earlier dispute between themselves and
respondent No.2. Petitioner No.3 Jiwan beat respondent No.2
on his left hand and left thigh as well as on chest with the
help of iron rod. The petitioners also beat Datta Narayan
Renge. Due to beating, respondent No.2 fell down and Datta
Renge ran away from that spot. After some time when Datta
and one Sujay Baburao Renge again came there on
motorcycle to see the respondent No.2, the petitioners again
abused them. The aforesaid entire incident was witnessed by
Ajay Baburao Renge and Narhari Narayan Renge.
Respondents No.2 was then taken to Civil Hospital, Parbhani
by his parents and thereafter respondent No.2 lodged the
aforesaid F.I.R. against the petitioners.
5. In respect of Crime No. 54/2020, which is the
subject-matter of Criminal Writ Petition No.841/2020,
criwp-839.2020 & 841.2020.odt
respondent No. 2 has made allegations that his grandfather
had got 15 Acres agricultural land in view of Ceiling Act and a
dispute is pending in respect of the said land in Civil Court.
According to respondent No.2, petitioner No.1 is cultivating
the said land on Batai basis, and therefore, the petitioners are
having grudge against him. On 05.04.2020 when he
alongwith his cousin Viay Bhagwan Mande and others had a
party in his feld at about 6.00 p.m., petitioner No.3, who was
present in adjacent feld, came there and abused them on the
basis of their caste in flthy language as to why they were
making noise. When respondent No.2 told petitioner No.3
that he was making noise in his feld, petitioner No.3
threatened him of dire consequences. Thereafter on
07.04.2020 when respondent No.2 was going to Parbhani road
for attending nature's call, petitioner No.2 came there and
caught hold him by pressing his neck. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3
also came there and petitioner No.3 beat him with fsts on
face and chest. Petitioner No.1 torn his shirt and also beat
him with kicks and fsts. All of them again abused him
referring his caste and also threatened him to kill. At the
relevant time, the persons present nearby namely Dattarao
Narayan Renge, Vishnu Marotrao Bhalerao and Sujay
Baburao Renge resolved the said dispute. As such,
criwp-839.2020 & 841.2020.odt
respondent No.2 was constrained to lodged the aforesaid
F.I.R. No. 54/2020 against the petitioners in Daithana Police
Station on 08.04.2020 for the offences mentioned above.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that
both the aforesaid FIRs have been lodged by respondent No.2
against the petitioners out of civil dispute only and the
incidents as alleged in those FIRs never took place. She
further submits that respondent No.2 in order to settle the
scores with Balaji Mandir in respect of land bearing Gut
No.314 has made the present petitioners as scapegoat and to
ensure that the petitioners should not raise any protest
against him on his attempts to encroach the aforesaid land.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that land Gut
No. 314 of Balaji Mandir Devasthan is being cultivated by
petitioner No.1 under an agreement and since petitioner No.1
had made various complaints against respondent No.2 and
his family members in respect of encroachment made by
respondent No.2 and his family members over the said land,
the present FIRs have been lodged by respondent No.2.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that
respondent No.2 has lodged both the FIRs with mala fde
intention and as a counter blast to the complaints made by
criwp-839.2020 & 841.2020.odt
petitioner No.1 against him. The petitioners have fled so
many documents as to how they lodged various complaints
against respondent No.2 in respect of the alleged
encroachment committed on land Gut No. 314 of Balaji
Mandir Devasthan by respondent No.2 and his family
members. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also placed
reliance on the following judgments :
(i) Prashant Bharti vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
(2013) 9 SCC 293
(ii) Shafya Khan y Shakuntala Prajapati vs.
State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 167
(iii) Rajiv Thapar & others vs. Madanlal Kapoor
(2013) 3 SCC 330
(iv) Vineet Kumar & others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
(2017) 13 SCC 369
(v) Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC India Ltd. & ors.
(2006) 6 SCC 736.
7. On the contrary, learned Counsel for respondent
No.2 strongly resisted the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioners. He submits that respondent No.2 has made
direct allegations against the petitioners in both the above-
mentioned FIRs and the dispute over land Gut No. 314 as
criwp-839.2020 & 841.2020.odt
alleged by the petitioners has nothing to do with the criminal
acts of the petitioners in both the crimes. He further submits
that when there are direct allegations in the FIR, then
extraneous material relied upon by the petitioners cannot be
considered. As such, he prayed for dismissal of both the
petitions.
8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. also argued in
similar manner as that of learned Counsel for respondent
No.2. Learned A.P.P. submits that the investigating
machinery, after investigation, has fled charge-sheets in both
the crimes and it has been revealed during the investigation
that the petitioners not only hurled caste abuses, but also
beat respondent No.2 severely. He pointed out that though
F.I.R. being Crime No. 128/2020 which is the subject-matter
of Criminal Writ Petition No. 839 of 2020 was initially
registered for the offence punishable under Section 324 of
I.P.C., but on investigation it has been revealed that the
petitioners inficted grievous injury to respondent No.2 and
therefore, charge-sheet in the said crime has been submitted
for the offence under Section 326 of I.P.C. Learned A.P.P.
therefore prayed for dismissal of both the petitions.
criwp-839.2020 & 841.2020.odt
9. We have carefully gone through the entire material
on record including both the FIRs and charge-sheets
alongwith police papers. We have also gone through the
aforesaid judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for
the petitioners. Admittedly, in both these FIRs, respondent
No.2 has made allegations against the petitioners that they
beat him severely and also abused him in flthy language by
referring his caste. On perusal of charge-sheet in respect of
Crime No. 128/2020 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 839 of
2020, it is clearly evident that respondent No.2 has sustained
grievous injury in form of fracture to his left wrist due to
beating extended by the petitioners to him. Further, there are
also other injuries in form of abrasion and blunt trauma over
the chest of respondent No.2 which defnitely supports the
allegations made by him against the petitioners in the said
crime. Similarly, in another Crime No. 54/2020, as per injury
certifcate, respondent No.2has sustained blunt trauma on
forehead and chest. Though the nature of those injuries is
simple, but it corroborates the allegations made by
respondent No.2 in the said F.I.R. Further, in both the crimes
there are also eye witnesses who had seen the incident as
stated by respondent No.2.
criwp-839.2020 & 841.2020.odt
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners heavily relied
on the aforesaid judgments. On carefully going through the
judgments in the cases of Prashant Bharti vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) and Shafya Khan y Shakuntala Prajapati vs. State of
U.P. (supra), it is evident that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that when the defence material relied upon by the
appellant - accused in support of his plea for quashing the
proceedings found to be sound, reasonable and indubitable,
suffcient to reject factual assertions contained in charges
levelled against him and not refuted by complainant,
proceedings can be quashed by invoking powers under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is also held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that the proceedings can be quashed if the trial would
result in abuse of process of court and would not serve ends
of justice. However, these observations have come in the light
of the observation of Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv
Thapar and others vs. Madanlal Kapoor (supra). On going
through the said judgment, it is evident that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines or steps to be
considered for quashing of proceedings on the basis of
defence material. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 30 of
the said judgment has made the following observations :
criwp-839.2020 & 841.2020.odt
"30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing
paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to
determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing,
raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in
the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:
30.1. Step one, whether the material relied upon by
the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable,
i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable
quality?
30.2. Step two, whether the material relied upon by
the accused, would rule out the assertions
contained in the charges levelled against the
accused, i.e., the material is suffcient to reject and
overrule the factual assertions contained in the
complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would
persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the factual basis of the accusations as
false.
30.3. Step three, whether the material relied upon
by the accused, has not been refuted by the
prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is
such, that it cannot be justifably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?
30.4. Step four, whether proceeding with the trial
would result in an abuse of process of the court, and
would not serve the ends of justice?
30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the
affrmative, judicial conscience of the High Court
should persuade it to quash such criminal
proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power,
besides doing justice to the accused, would save
precious court time, which would otherwise be
wasted in holding such a trial (as well as,
proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is
clear that the same would not conclude in the
conviction of the accused".
criwp-839.2020 & 841.2020.odt
On perusal of the aforesaid steps, it has been
abundantly made clear by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if
the defence material relied upon by the accused discloses
certain facts which would render the allegations levelled by
the complainant redundant then only the proceedings can be
quashed.
11. Here in this case, the petitioners are claiming that
petitioner No.1 is cultivating the land Gut No. 314 of village
Jamb owned by Balaji Mandir Devasthan and since
respondent No. 2 and his family members were obstructed by
petitioner No.1 when they were illegally trying to encroach
upon the said land, the present false FIRs have been lodged.
Admittedly, the petitioners have fled various documents as
their defence material on record to that effect. However, on
perusal of the said documents, it appears that the present
petitioner No.1 in both the petitions has been appointed to
cultivate the said land Gut No. 314 of Balaji Mandir
Devasthan under an agreement (Nokarnama) and that the
petitioner No.1 and Priest of the said Balaji Mandir Devasthan
have lodged various complaints before the various
Authorities in respect of the alleged encroachment at the
hands of respondent No.2 and his family members. The
criwp-839.2020 & 841.2020.odt
petitioners are thus claiming that respondent No.2, to counter
those complaints, has fled both these FIRs with concocted
stories and taking disadvantage of his caste. However, we
have already mentioned above that how respondent No.2 was
beaten by the petitioners and in the result of that beating
respondent No.2 had even sustained grievous injuries. As
such, when there are direct allegations in the F.I.R. against
the petitioners supported by medical evidence, then the steps
mentioned in the aforesaid judgment cannot be applied for
quashing the FIRs in question.
12. In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch.
Bhajan Lal and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has already laid down the cases in
which the Court can quash criminal proceedings and the sum
and substance of the said judgment is that, when the
allegations in the F.I.R. or the complaint even if they are taken
at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused, then only F.I.R. can be quashed. Further, it has
also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case
that when the complaint containing serious allegations even if
laid on account of personal animosity, not liable to be
criwp-839.2020 & 841.2020.odt
discarded when the allegations are yet to be tested and
weighed after the evidence is collected. In the instant case,
we have already mentioned herein above that there are direct
allegations against the petitioners in both the FIRs
constituting a cognizable offence, and therefore, it would not
be proper to quash the criminal proceedings in view of the
tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (supra) without giving any
opportunity to the prosecution to establish the same.
13. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also relied on
judgments in the cases of Vineet Kumar and others vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and another and Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC
India Ltd. and others (supra) and submitted that respondent
No.2 has fled both the above-said FIRs with mala fde
intention and to settle the scores with Balajai Mandir
Devasthan in respect of land Gut No. 314 which is being
cultivated by present petitioner No.1 under an agreement.
However, we have already discussed above as to how there are
prima facie allegations against the petitioners supported by
eye witnesses and medical documents and therefore, we are
not inclined to hold, at this juncture, that the present FIRs
are lodged by respondent No.2 with mala fde intention. For
criwp-839.2020 & 841.2020.odt
that purpose a thorough trial is defnitely needed. Even
otherwise also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra) observed that
when there are direct allegations in the FIR, then the mala
fdes cannot be considered for quashing the same. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in Criminal
Appeal No. 1455-1456 of 2021 in the case of State of Odisha
vs. Pratima Mohanty Etc. has observed in para 6.2 as under :
"6.2 It is trite that the power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in
rare cases. As per settled proposition of law while
examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon any enquiry
as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations
made in the FIR/complaint. Quashing of a
complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than
any ordinary rule. Normally the criminal
proceedings should not be quashed in exercise of
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when after a
thorough investigation the charge sheet has been
fled. At the stage of discharge and/or considering
the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the courts
are not required to go into the merits of the
allegations and/or evidence in detail as if conducing
the mini trial. As held by this Court the powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but
conferment of wide power requires the court to be
more cautious. It casts an onerous and more
diligent duty on the Court".
14. On going through the aforesaid observation, it has
been made clear that while exercising power under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. the Courts are not required to go into the
criwp-839.2020 & 841.2020.odt
merits of the allegations or evidence in detail as if conducting
a mini-trial.
15. Considering all the above discussed aspects and in
view of the observations made in the above-cited case, we fnd
that there are direct allegations in both the FIRs lodged by
respondent No.2 constituting a cognizable offence. Moreover,
the allegations are also supported by statements of eye
witnesses and respective medical documents. Thus, prima
facie it appears that there is a triable case against the
petitioners, and therefore, the First Information Reports being
Crime No. 54/2020 and Crime No. 128/2020 cannot be
quashed by exercising the powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. With these observations we fnd
that there is no substance in both the criminal writ petitions
which are liable to be dismissed. Hence, we pass the
following order.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Writ Petition No.839 of 2020 and
Criminal Writ Petition No. 841 of 2020 are
hereby dismissed.
(ii) Rule stands discharged.
criwp-839.2020 & 841.2020.odt
(iii) We quantify the fees of the learned appointed
Counsel for respondent No.2 at Rs.2000/-
(Rupees Two Thousand Only) each in both
the petitions, to be paid by the High Court
Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.
(iv) Both the Criminal Writ Petitions are
accordingly disposed of.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (V.K. JADHAV, J.)
VD_Dhirde
