Bombay High Court
Deepak S/O Khemchand Sahu vs State Of Mah., Thr. Pso Ps ... on 12 June, 2023
Bench: Vinay Joshi, Valmiki Sa Menezes
Judgment 18apl1094.19
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1094/2019
Deepak s/o. Khemchand Sahu,
Aged about 33 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Qtr. No. F type 75, MCW Colony,
Ambuja Cement Ltd., Post:Upparwahi,
Tah. Korpana, Dist. Chandrapur.
... APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra through
P.S.O., Gadchandur Police Station,
Tah: Korpana, Dist. Chandrapur.
2. Lata w/o. Suryabhan Kodape,
aged 35 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Upparwahi, Tah. Korpana,
Dist. Chandrapur, PIN-442908.
... NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------
Mr. Saurabh Singha, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr. U.J. Deshpande, Advocate (appointed) for non-applicant No.2.
----------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI,
VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ
DATED : 12.06.2023
Judgment 18apl1094.19
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: VINAY JOSHI, J)
Heard.
2. This application is seeking quashing of First Information
Report ('FIR') vide crime No. 374/2019 registered with Police Station
Gadchandur, Tah. Korpana, Dist. Chandrapur for the offence
punishable under Sections 354(A) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections
3(1)(i), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('Atrocities
Act').
3. The applicant would urge that the allegations levelled in
the Police Report are totally false and fabricated. The criminal
prosecution is manifestly attended with malafides with a view to
pressurize the applicant from withdrawing his earlier prosecution for
the offence of theft. Moreover, it is submitted that at the relevant
time, the applicant was at his service place and thus, the entire
incident is false and imaginary. On the other hand, the learned APP
and learned counsel appearing for informant would submit that the
informant has specifically narrated the occurrence in her report and
Judgment 18apl1094.19
the aspect of alibi is a matter of defence. There is sufficient material
to put the applicant on trial.
4. The informant-lady aged 35 years was a maid servant
working in the house of applicant. It is her case that on 13.08.2019
as usual she went to the house of the applicant around 11.45 a.m. for
household work. At relevant time, wife of applicant was away from
the house, therefore, applicant stared her with ill-intention. He has
asked her to massage and then suddenly caught hold her hand.
Under such allegation, she has lodged report on 10.09.2019.
Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence rather, we
cannot expect the eye-witness to such occurrence also.
5. There is no denial that informant was working as maid
servant with the applicant. The applicant has stated that the
informant while working as a maid servant, had committed theft of
cash amount and gold ornaments from his house for which he has
lodged Report against her on 01.09.2019 which was registered by
Police vide Crime No. 344/2019 for the offence punishable under
Sections 381 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of said report,
Judgment 18apl1094.19
informant was arrested on 01.09.2019 and was in Police Custody till
03.09.2019. She was released on bail on 05.09.2019. The said
factual position has not been denied by the informant. It reveals that
after informant's release on bail, she has lodged report on 10.09.2019
pertaining to the incident allegedly occurred on 13.08.2019. We find
no justification for such prolonged delay. Already, the applicant has
lodged report against the informant on 01.09.2019 and thus, it is
improbable that even thereafter she has continued to work at the
house of the applicant. The long delay itself postulates that the
informant got annoyed by registration of the offence. There is strong
possibility of lodging report of pressurize or settle the score.
6. The applicant is serving with a Private Company. He has
produced attendance sheet along the punch-card showing that on
13.08.2019, he entered into the Company at 08.00 a.m. and left at
06.38 p.m. The punch-card was prepared under bio-metrics system.
Prima facie, the said material falsifies the allegation in-toto. However,
prominently the documents tendered on record supports the
applicant's case of false implication. On careful examination of entire
material, we are of the considered view that the case falls under
Judgment 18apl1094.19
criteria (7) of Para 108 of the laid down by the Supreme Court in
case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. The
Supreme Court has specified that when criminal proceeding is
manifestly filed with malafide with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, the FIR needs to be quashed. We are of the considered
view that as a counterblast to the case of theft, existing FIR has been
lodged that too after gap of several days and therefore, continuation
of such proceeding amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. In
order to secure the ends of justice, the entire prosecution is liable to
be quashed and set aside.
7. In view of above, application is allowed. We hereby quash
and set aside FIR vide crime No. 374/2019 registered with Police
Station Gadchandur, Tah. Korpana, Dist. Chandrapur for the offence
punishable under Sections 354(A) of the Indian Penal Code read with
Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Atrocities Act' along
with related charge-sheet No. 82/2022.
Judgment 18apl1094.19
8. Application stands disposed of in above terms.
9. Fees for appointed learned counsel for non-applicant No. 2
be paid as per Rules.
(VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Gohane
