Bombay High Court
Ashok Vishwanath Gaikwad And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 21 April, 2023
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Abhay S. Waghwase
Cri.Appln.3071.2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3071 OF 2022
1. Ashok Vishwanath Gaikwad,
Age : 50 Years, Occu. Agri.,
2. Mohan Bhanudas Kokate,
Age : 70 Years, Occu. Agri.,
3. Chandrakant Mohan Kokate,
Age : 38 Years, Occu. Agri.,
4. Rukmin Mohan Kokate,
Age : 65 Years, Occu. Household,
5. Jyoti Chandrakant Kokate,
Age : 30 Years, Occu. Household,
All R/o. Rui (Dhoki), Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. ... Applicants.
(Orig. Accused)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Dhoki Police Station,
Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad.
2. Vaishali W/o. Ajit Ruikar,
Age : 34 Years, Occ. Labour,
R/o. Rui (Dhoki) Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. ... Respondents
(Orig. Complainant)
...
Mr. Sambhaji S. Wakure, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. G. O. Wattamwar, AGP for Respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. P. B. Gapat, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 12 APRIL 2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 21 APRIL 2023
1/5
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2023 18:00:28 :::
Cri.Appln.3071.2022.odt
JUDGMENT (PER ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) :
All applicants herein have prayed for quashing of the FIR bearing
No.305 of 2021 registered with Dhoki Police Station, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad
for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 506 of
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, and the consequential charge-sheet and criminal case bearing Special
Case No.14 of 2022 pending on the file of learned District Judge-1 and
Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad.
2. Inviting our attention to the FIR, learned counsel for applicants
would submit that above FIR is offshoot of civil litigation. Allegations levelled
in the present complaint are apparently false, baseless and are raised with the
sole intention of harassing applicants. Learned counsel emphasized that even
allegations are vague and without particulars. That, there is a clear attempt of
misuse the provisions of law to settle the score. Learned counsel pointed out
that on going through the FIR it is revealed that no role whatsoever is
attributed to applicant no.4 Rukmin and applicant no.5 Jyoti, however they
too are named in the FIR. That, it being abuse of process of law, it is submitted
that, relief as prayed deserves to be granted.
Cri.Appln.3071.2022.odt
3. In answer to above, learned AGP for the State as well as learned
counsel for respondent no.2 would submit that allegations are specific. There
is caste abuse coupled with assault/beating. Roles are clearly defined. In view
of the serious allegations of caste abuse, applicants do not deserve relief as
prayed. For all above reasons, it is submitted that application be rejected.
4. After considering the rival contentions of both sides and bearing
in mind the scope of powers for exercising section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, we have examined the FIR. Complainant has alleged that
applicants herein were grinding the Soyabin crop, which allegedly belonged to
respondent-informant. On being questioned to that extent, it is alleged that
initially Mohan Bhanudas Kokate and Chandrakant Mohan Kokate i.e.
applicant nos.2 and 3, by uttering caste abuse, asked complainant to leave the
field. She has alleged that applicant no.4 assaulted her with sickle on the
wrist and accused no.5 Jyoti beat her with kicks and fists. Accused no.2 made
a phone call and called Pandurang and he also allegedly uttered caste abuses.
However, said Pandurang is not before this Court seeking any relief.
5. Therefore, on minute scrutiny of FIR, allegation of caste abuses
are attributed to Mohan and Chandrakant, whereas it is emerging that no
allegations about caste abuses are made against Rukmin and Jyoti, i.e.
applicant nos.4 and 5, however against them there are allegations of beating.
Cri.Appln.3071.2022.odt
Therefore, under such circumstances, charge for commission of offences under
the Atrocities Act apparently does not get attracted against applicant nos.4 and
5. Resultantly, continuation of prosecution against these two applicants, in our
view, does amount to abuse of process of law i.e. for commission of offences
under the Atrocities Act. But, they are required to face charges for other
offences under Indian Penal Code. There being clear allegations of caste
abuses, as against applicant nos.1 and 2, they are not entitled for any relief.
In the light of above discussion and taking recourse to the ruling
in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another ; (2020) 10
SCC 710, which permits quashment of the part charge-sheet, in our opinion,
charge for commission of offence under the Atrocities Act alleged against
applicant nos.3 and 4 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, we
proceed to pass following order :-
ORDER
(i). Criminal application is partly allowed.
(ii). Crime and charge-sheet against applicant nos.4 and 5 only to the
extent of commission of offence of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 is quashed and set aside.
Cri.Appln.3071.2022.odt
(iii) Charges for commission of offences under the Atrocities Act as
against applicant nos.1 and 2 and under Indian Penal Code are kept intact.
Similarly, charges under Indian Penal Code as against applicant nos.4 and 5
are also kept intact.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
Tandale/-
