Bombay High Court
Pappu @ Shivram Sopan Pawar And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 13 June, 2022
Bench: S.S. Shinde, Milind N. Jadhav
129. cri wp 800-21.doc
R.M. AMBERKAR
(Private Secretary)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 800 OF 2021
Pappu @ Shivram Sopan Pawar & Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Mahashtra & Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. S.S. Prabhune for the Petitioners
Mr. K.V. Saste, APP for the State
...................
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE &
MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 13, 2022
ORDER [PER MILIND N. JADHAV, J.] :
1. By the present petition, the Petitioner has, inter alia, prayed
for the following relief:-
"(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to kindly quash the
proceedings in Spl Case No. 241/2020 pending before the
Learned Sessions Court, Baramati arising out of FIR No. 178 of
2020."
2. The Petitioners are seeking quashing of proceedings in
Special Case No. 241/2020 pending before the Sessions Court,
Baramati arising out of FIR No. 178/2020.
3. The FIR has been filed for offences under sections 143, 147,
148, 149, 327, 324, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code
("IPC") and sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Schedule Castes and
Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 2015 ("Atrocities Act")
1 of 6
129. cri wp 800-21.doc
and section7(a)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
4. It is alleged by the Petitioners that the FIR is a counterblast
to the ongoing civil dispute pertaining to land between the parties.
There is a Special Civil Suit filed in the year 2006 being SCS No. 116
of 2006 seeking specific performance of agreement against the
husband and other family members of the first informant. In the year
2013 the husband and family members of the first informant have
filed a Regular Civil Suit being RCS No. 375/2013 against the
Petitioners and his family members for permanent injunction. The
subject property in question in both the aforesaid suits is Gat No.
211/1, agricultural land situated at Hingangaon, Taluka Indapur,
District Pune. It appears from the record that several orders have been
passed by the civil court in the interregnum. It also appears that
family members of the parties have filed complaints and cross-
complaints against each other before various forums. Most
importantly both the parties claim possession of the subject land.
5. The incident complained of in the present FIR is of
12.03.2020. It is alleged that the accused confronted the first
informant and his family members in the subject agricultural land
after arriving there with five others in his vehicle XUV MH-03/BH-
2931 and claimed that the subject agricultural land was their land. At
that time they had an iron rod in their hands and after threatening the
first informant and their family members the accused / Petitioners
2 of 6
129. cri wp 800-21.doc
abused them on the basis of their caste. In the altercation and
skirmish that followed Rajat Satyawan Dhaije nephew of the
complainant received a bleeding head injury from the iron rod
inflicted by Yuvraj Sopan Pawar whereas the complainant received
injury on both his hands and both his legs inflicted by Pappu Pawar;
further mother-in-law of the complainant Padmnii Narayan Jagtap was
pushed and beaten by fists; the gold chain of the complainant was
snatched by one of the unknown assialnt in the group of five and the
complainant and his family members were driven out of the subject
agricultural land. The FIR is lodged against Yurvaj Pawar, Pappu
Pawar and five other unknown persons and it is claimed by the
complainant that the entire incident has been filmed on the mobile
phone by Lakhan Satyawan Lahije. Investigation has been completed
and charge sheet is also filed.
6. We have perused the chargesheet and the medical certificate
of the injuries caused by the Petitioners. Though the injuries are
simple as stated and seen, there is a long standing dispute between the
family members of the complainant and the family members of the
Petitioners in resepcet of the said agricultural land. However it cannot
be said that the FIR that was lodged was a counterblast to the civil suit
proceedings as argued by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. If the
dates of the two suits are seen, they are far apart and more
importantly the FIR has been lodged in the year 2020.
3 of 6
129. cri wp 800-21.doc
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the offences
under the Atrocities Act are not clearly made out and there is no eye
witness to the incident; that the injuries caused are simple injuries as
per the medical certificate placed on record; that because of the long
standing dispute between the parties the complaint filed by the first
informatn is out of vengeance and vendetta and most importantly the
Petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court on the
basis of the aforesaid reasons.
8. Learned counsel has also referred to and relied upon the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh1 to contend that the powers under section 482 of
Cr.P.C. are exercisable in post-conviction matters even when the
Appeal is pending before one or other judicial forum. Paragraph No.
16 of the said judgment is sought to be relied upon which reads thus:
16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence
in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private
or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed
on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the
legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court
can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings........."
9. PER CONTRA, learned APP has invited our attention to the
chargesheet and the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer
(IO) which are appended to the petition. He submits that if the same
are carefully perused not only the offence under the Atrocities Act is
made out but the act of the Petitioners in inflicting injury by the iron
1 2021 4 Crimes (SC) 296 : 2021 7 Supreme 473
4 of 6
129. cri wp 800-21.doc
rod on the Respondent No. 2 and the family members of the informant
is clearly made out; in fact the Petitioners have not even spared the
women family members of the informant; that the five assailants along
with the Petitioners have been identified in the investigation and their
statements have been recorded; that the injury certificate placed on
record clearly reflects the nature of the injury inflicted by the
Petitioners and hence the relief sought by the Petitioners to quash the
proceedings in its entirety should be rejected.
10. We have considered the pleadings and perused the
chargesheet carefully. We have also considered the decision in the
case of Ramawatar (supra) relied upon by the Petitioners. The said
decision however in paragraph No. 19 clearly states that in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, the Supreme Court
considered the application for compromise and was therefore inclined
to invoke the powers under Article 142 and quash the criminal
proceedings with the sole objective of doing complete justice between
the parties. Hence we are of the opinion that the facts and
circumstances of each case would govern the result in the said case.
11. In the present case it is seen that the civil suits between the
parties have been filed in the year 2006 and 2013. One of the
principal ground argued by the Petitioners is that since the
complainant has been unsuccessful in defending the civil proceedings
the present complaint is a counterblast to the same. This ground on
5 of 6
129. cri wp 800-21.doc
the face of rerecord cannot countenanced. Further the Petitioners
have pleaded that the injuries are not grievous and there is no eye
witness to the incident. Both these grounds once again cannot be
countenanced at this stage when admittedly several members of the
complaint's family were beaten by seven persons including the
Petitioners at the spot of the incident. The trial would determine the
answers to the above questions. There is no denial of the fact that the
complainant and two of his family members were injured and had to
be taken for medical treatment, injury certificates of the Sub-District
Hospital Indapur, Pune confirms the same.
12. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that
the relief prayed for by the Petitioners to quash the entire proceedings
in Special Case No. 241 of 2020 arising out of FIR No. 178 of 2020
cannot be allowed at this stage. The reasons given above do not
persuade us to accept the submissions of the Petitioners. Hence the
Petition stands dismissed. However our observations are prima facie
in nature.
13. Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
AMBERKAR
MOHAN Date:
AMBERKAR 2022.06.15
10:46:18
+0530
6 of 6
