Bombay High Court
Kisan Raju Mistry vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 August, 2024
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2024:BHC-AS:30434-DB
1/3 905 WP-2079-10.odt
Digitally signed by MANDIRA
MANDIRA MILIND
SALGAONKAR
MILIND SALGAONKAR
Date: 2024.08.02 15:46:51
+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2079 OF 2010
Kisan Raju Mistry .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...
Mr.R.K.Mendadkar with Mr.Siddhant Sawai for the Petitioner.
Dr.Ashvini A. Takalkar, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent.
...
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 01st AUGUST, 2024
P.C:-
1. The learned A.P.P. Dr.Takalkar has obtained necessary
instructions and she also informs that she has consultation
with learned Advocate General for the State of Maharashtra,
who has conceded to the position of law settled down by this
Court in the case of Vilas s/o Rambhau Majrikar Vs. State of
Maharashtra1, where it is categorically held that filing of police
complaint or FIR under Section 12 is not permissible under the
Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified
Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of
Issuance and Verification of ) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (for
1 2015 ALL MR (Crime) 4025
M.M.Salgaonkar
2/3 905 WP-2079-10.odt
short, "Act") and the only mode that is permissible under
Section 11(2) of the Act is filing of a private complaint by
Scrutiny Committee or its authorised officer.
2. Reading of Sections 11 and 12 of the Act harmoniously, it
is evident that Section 11 has made certain acts punishable
and have classified as offences and sub-section (1) of Section
11 has created a category of offence, against the person who
obtain a false caste certificate by furnishing false information
or filling false statement or documents or by any other
fraudulent means and such person, though do not belong to
any of the categories set out in the Act, secures any benefits or
appointments exclusively reserved for such castes, tribes or
classes in Government, local authority or any other company
or corporation owned or controlled by the Government or in
any Government aided institution, or secures admission in any
educational institution against a seat exclusively reserved for
such castes, tribes or classes or is elected to any of the elective
offices of any local authority or Co-operative Society against
the office, reserved for such castes, tribes or classes by
producing a false caste certificate, he shall be liable for
imposition of punishment on conviction.
Sub-section (2) of Section 11 make it evidently clear that
no court shall take cognizance of the offence punishable under
sub-section (1) of Section 11, except on a complaint, in writing,
made by the Scrutiny Committee or any other officer duly
autorised by the Scrutiny Committee.
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/3 905 WP-2079-10.odt
Section 12 has categorised the offences under the Act to
be cognizable and non-bailable.
3. Reading of the aforesaid provisions alongwith
observations made by the Division Bench in paragraphs 15
and 16, would make it evidently clear to us that the present
Petition deserve to be allowed. The relevant paragraphs from
the judgment read thus :-
"15] By merely making the offence under this Section 11
cognizable and non-bailable, the position would not change and the
operation and effect of Section 11(2) does not get obliterated or non
operational. We are therefore of the opinion that even though
offences have been made cognizable or non-bailable, Section 11(2)
must be held to operate with full force. That means what is
contemplated by Section 11(2) is filing of a private complaint by the
Scrutiny Committee or its authorized officer before the Court who
could then take cognizance. In other words, filing of a police case is
not contemplated by the aforesaid provision.
16] In the light of the above discussion with reference to
question no.1, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that filing
of a police case by registration of F.I.R. before the criminal Court is
not contemplated and what is contemplated is filing of a private
complaint by a Scrutiny Committee or its authorized officer in
accordance with Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We,
therefore, answer question no.1 accordingly and hold that filing of
final report by the police under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure by way of chargesheet is illegal and contrary to the
provisions of law as aforesaid."
4. In the wake of the above, we are convinced that the
subject F.I.R., registered at the instance of Nayab Tahsildar,
who is authorised by the Tahsildar Office, Mulund, cannot
proceed ahead. Resultantly, the same is quashed and set aside.
The Writ Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause
(a).
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE,J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
