Bombay High Court
Sandip Bhagwan Dank And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 5 March, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:5762-DB
1 944.Cri.WP.-993-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Criminal Writ Petition No. 993 / 2023
1. Sandip Bhagwan Dankh
2. Rameshwar Bhagwan Dankh
3. Bhagwan Pandharinath Dankh
4. Geetabai Bhagwan Dankh
All R/o Pathrud Tq. And Dist. Jalna. ...Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector
Shevli Police Station,
Dist. Jalna.
2. Kamalbai Karbhari Maghade ...Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Suvidh S. Kulkarni
APP for the Respondent No.1/State : Ms. S.S. Joshi
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sanjay E. Sarode
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 5 MARCH 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT [Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.] :
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of the parties.
2 944.Cri.WP.-993-2023.doc
2. The petitioners are seeking quashment of FIR bearing C.R.
No.75/2023 dated 01.05.2023 registered with Shevli Police
Station, Taluka and District Jalna for the offences punishable
under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506, 143, 147, 148 of the Indian
Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u) of the
Prevention of Atrocities (S.C. & S.T.) Act, 1989, consequential
charge-sheet and Special Criminal Case no.202/2023 pending
before the learned Special Judge at Jalna.
3. Respondent no.2 is the informant who claims to be
belonging to scheduled caste. On 01.05.2023, she lodged report
with the concerned police station against the petitioners. It
is alleged that on 26.04.2023 when she was in her field
situated at Village Pathrud alongwith her husband, the
petitioners were in the adjoining field. There was altercation
between them. The informant and her husband were beaten by the
petitioners and they were abused on their caste. Informant's
husband sustained injuries.
4. The offence registered at the instance of respondent no.2
was investigated and charge-sheet was filed which culminated in
SCC No.202/2023 which is pending before Special Judge Jalna.
3 944.Cri.WP.-993-2023.doc
5. The petitioners have produced cross-complaint filed by
petitioner no.2-Rameshwar against informant and others on
03.05.2023 bearing C.R. No.78/2023, alleging that on 26.04.2023
informant and her family members had beaten him and snatched
golden bracelet and cash of Rs.20,000/-. He was threatened of
filing case under provisions of Prevention of Atrocities Act.
Petitioners have also produced on record the documents to show
that petitioner no.1/Sandip and petitioner no.4/Geetabai were
not present on 26.04.2023 at the spot of the incident, but they
were at Rangareddy, Secunderabad (State of Telangana) alongwith
his brother Sandip who happenes to be Sepoy in CRPF.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Kulkarni, submits
that the incident was not within a public view. They are
falsely implicated. Petitioner no.1 and 3 were not present at
the relevant time. There was delay in lodging complaint. Due
to the enmity, the petitioners have been implicated. The
witnesses whose statements are recorded during the course of
investigation are interested ones. Out of them, Karbhari and
Vikram are accused in complaint registered at the instance of
Rameshwar.
4 944.Cri.WP.-993-2023.doc
7. Learned Counsel further submits that no case is made out
and it would be an abuse of process of law. For that purpose,
he seeks to rely on the judgment in the matter of Ramesh
Chandra Vaishya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., in
Criminal Appeal No.1617/2023.
8. Learned APP and learned Counsel for the respondent no.2
would repel the submissions of the petitioners. The respondent
no.2 has filed affidavit-in-reply to oppose the contentions of
the petitioners. They would submit that the incident took place
in the open agricultural field which was definitely within
public view and it was witnessed by the independent witnesses.
There is cogent material on record to proceed against the
petitioners. There are eye-witnesses to the incident. Learned
APP would rely on the judgment in the matter of Hitesh Verma
Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr., (2020) 10 SCC 710, to show
that place in question was within public view.
9. We have considered rival submissions of the parties and
we have gone through the papers of investigation. It reveals
from the record that the petitioners, informant and her family
5 944.Cri.WP.-993-2023.doc
members are occupants of adjoining agricultural fields. They
are acquainted with each other. There appears to be some
dispute over the agricultural land. Both the parties have filed
cross-complaints of the incident occurred on 26.04.2023 albeit
the timings are different.
10. The agricultural land gut no.408 situated at Pathrud,
where the incident took place, is an open field. We have
ascertained the same from the papers of investigation
especially the spot panchnama. The incident occurred in broad
daylight at 02:30 pm. and it was witnessed by Vikram Babu Pawar
and Bhanudas Bhagoji Gadekar. Paragraph no. 14 of the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the matter of Hitesh Verma (supra), it
has been explained what would be the place within public view.
We have no hesitation to hold that the incident occurred in a
place within public view.
11. We have considered FIR and the statements of the
witnesses carefully. We find that petitioner no.2 and 4 hurled
abuses in the name of the caste. The informant and her husband
belong to scheduled caste. We are of the considered view that
6 944.Cri.WP.-993-2023.doc
offence under provision of Section 3(1)(r) and (s) can be made
out. The witnesses further corroborate that there was a fight
and altercation. We have seen the injury certificate of
Karbhari Sitaram Mhagade which can be attributed to petitioner
no.1/Sandip. We find that there is sufficient material on
record to proceed against petitioners under the provisions of
Indian Penal Code as well.
12. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits
that there is enmity between the parties. There is already
cross-complaint filed by petitioner no.2/Rameshwar. We have
gone through the cross-complaint which is registered on
03.05.2023 bearing C.R. No.78/2023. Impugned FIR is registered
on 01.05.2023. The enmity between the parties is apparent.
Couple of witnesses are common. The deposition of the witnesses
cannot be undermined at this stage. Besides that there is
independent witness Bhanudas Bhagoji Gadekar to the incident in
question. We are of the considered view that full-fledged
trial is required to ascertain the truth.
13. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the
judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Ramesh Chandra
7 944.Cri.WP.-993-2023.doc
Vaishya (supra). Our attention is invited to paragraph no.17
to buttress the submission that the incident in question in the
present matter, is not within public view. However, the
judgment is distinguishable on material particulars. In the
case in hand, incident occurred in broad daylight in open
agricultural field which was not the case before the Supreme
Court. The judgment would not enure to the benefit of the
petitioners.
14. For the reasons stated above, we do not find that the
case is made out as per the parameters laid down by the Supreme
Court in the matter of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal
and Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, to cause any interference in
criminal proceeding. We, therefore dismiss writ petition. Rule
is discharged.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]
NAJEEB...
