Bombay High Court
Ranjit Balbhim Todkari And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 2 September, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2024:BHC-AUG:20847-DB
{1}
crapln 4044.19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4044 OF 2019
1. Ranjit Balbhim Todkari,
Age 29 years, Occ. Agri.,
R/o. Apsinga, Tq. Tuljapur
Dist. Osmanabad.
2. Parmeshwar Sitaram Rathod,
Age 40 years, Occ. Agri,
R/o. As above.
3. Aappa @ Digambar S/o Bhaskar Joshi,
Age 29 years, Occ. Agri.
R/o. Apsinga, Tq. Tuljapur,
Dist. Osmanabad.
.. Applicants
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
(Through the Police Station
Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad)
2. Vandana Devidas Maske,
Age 35 years, Occ. Agri.
R/o. Apsinga, Tq. Tuljapur,
Dist. Osmanabad.
.. Respondents.
Mr. G.J. Kore, Advocate for applicants,
Mr. A.M. Phule, APP for respondent No.1
Mr. S.S. Nande, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI
& S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2024.
{2}
crapln 4044.19.odt
JUDGMENT [ Per S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J] :-
1. The applicants/accused in Crime No. 335 of 2019 dated
25.9.2019 registered with police station, Tuljapur, for the offences
punishable under Sections 354, 323, 447, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC and Section
3(1)(w)(I)(II) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2019, have
approached this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, for quashing of FIR and consequential proceeding in Special
Case No. 109 of 2020 pending before the learned Sessions Judge,
Osmanabad.
2. Respondent No.2 herein informed police station that on
26.9.2019 while she was working in field Survey No. 101, Kamtha,
accused Parmeshwar Rathod, Ranjit Todkari and Appa Bhaskar Joshi,
arrived on the spot. They reprimanded her saying ", ekaxVhus ek>~;k 'ksrkrqu
ckgsj tk". Thereafter, accused Parmeshwar pressed her chest with an ill
intention and outraged her modesty. The other accused persons
instigated him. On arrival of her father and sister, accused persons fled
away. The aforesaid information was reduced into writing and
transformed into FIR for aforesaid offences.
3. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against
accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 354,
323,447, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(I)(II) of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocities Act").
4. Mr. G.J. Kore, learned advocate appearing for the applicants
would submit that the compliant is lodged with malafide intention.
{3}
crapln 4044.19.odt
Although the incident alleged is dated 13.9.2019, FIR has been lodged on
25.9.2019, after inordinate delay of 12 days. He would submit that
applicant Nos. 1 and 2 have purchased the suit land from father/brother
of informant under registered sale deeds. The informant is the
consenting party to the said sale deed. Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are put
into possession. The informant raised the dispute of boundaries.
Therefore, applicants had applied to the TILR, Tuljapur for measurement
of the suit land and fixing the boundaries. However, on the date fixed for
measurement, informant and her family members obstructed the TILR.
Consequently, Panchanama to that effect was drawn. The applicants
were threatened by family members of the informant that they would
lodge false case under the Atrocities Act. The applicants had, therefore,
reported the incident to the police vide application dated 23.6.2018.
Similar threats were given to the applicants, hence, again they made
application dated 27.2.2019. On 13.9.2019, the applicants have
submitted one more application regarding the threats received from the
family of the informant regarding filing of false cases for offences under
Atrocities Act.
4. He would submit that previously, the informant had adopted
similar modes operandi and filed false cases against one Bakhtawar
Sayyad, who had purchased land from the family of the informant. The
applicants have already instituted R.C.S. No. 11 of 2019 and 20 of 2019
for fixation and demarcation of boundaries and perpetual injunction
against the informant and her family members. He would, therefore,
urge that the informant is taking disadvantage of the caste and lodged
absolutely false cases against the applicants with an intention to
pressurize them and get advance in the civil dispute.
{4}
crapln 4044.19.odt
5. Per contra, the learned advocate for the informant -
respondent No.2 submits that the averments in the FIR are sufficient to
make out the offences as alleged. Immediately after the incident dated
13.9.2019, the informant had approached the police station. However,
cognizance of her complaint was not taken. He invites attention of this
court to the application tendered by respondent no.2, which appears to
have been received on 17.9.2019 by the concerned police station,
regarding incident dated 13.9.2019 containing allegations against the
applicants. He would, therefore, submit that the delay in lodging the FIR
is inconsequential.
6. Mr. A.M. Phule, learned A.P.P. points out that after due
investigation, charge sheet has been filed, which contains the statements
of witnesses in support of averments made in the FIR. He would
therefore submit that in such a case, trial needs to proceed. Falsity of
allegations cannot be a ground to quash the proceeding under inherent
powers of this Court.
7. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned
advocates for the respective parties. Pertinently, the report of incident
dated 13.9.2019 appears to have been culminated into FIR on 26.9.2019.
It is true that prior to registration of the offence, written information in
respect of the incident was tendered by the informant to the police
station and same has been acknowledged on 17.9.2019. It appears that
on 16.9.2019 the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 had also lodged the report with
Superintendent of Police station at Tuljapur informing that informant and
her family members were disturbing their peaceful possession over the
suit land and also threatened them to lodge complaints against them
under the Atrocities Act. It appears that even prior to such incident, the
{5}
crapln 4044.19.odt
applicants had received threats from respondent No.2 and her family
members, which were duly reported by them to the police station.
Pertinently, a civil dispute is pending between the parties over the
agricultural land. Applicant No.1 has instituted R.C.S. No. 11 of 2019 in
respect of the suit property against the family members of the informant.
Same is pending.
8. In this background, it would be necessary to examine, as to
whether the contents of the FIR or charge sheet are sufficient to make
out any case against the applicants for prosecution for the offences
alleged. The scrutiny of FIR would depict that allegations about abuses
on caste are general and vague in nature. No specifications have been
given as to who has actually uttered the abuses over caste. From the
contents of FIR it cannot be perceived that the abuses were uttered with
ill-intention to humiliate or insult the first informant on her caste within
a public view. The mens rea to hurl the castiest abuses within a public
view to humiliate or insult cannot be gathered so as to make out any
offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Atrocities Act.
9. So far as the offence under Section 354 of the IPC is
concerned, it can be observed that in application dated 14.9.2019
tendered by the first informant with the police station ( received on
17.9.2019) a totally different version of the incident has been given.
Apparently, allegation to make out the offence of outraging modesty is
concerned, informant has employed an improved version in the FIR.
10. Although this court is not expected to enter into deeper
inquiry as regards to the contents of FIR, in the background that there is
a chequered history of litigation between the parties, it is inevitable for
this court to enter into at least superficial inquiry as regards to the
{6}
crapln 4044.19.odt
contents of FIR.
11. At this stage, reference can be made to the guidelines laid
down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the matter of "State
of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and others" reported in AIR 1992 S.C. 604,
Particularly, in para. 108, which reads thus :-
"108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which
we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the
accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
{7}
crapln 4044.19.odt
make out a case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.
12. Clause No.7 of the aforesaid guidelines refers that where
criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where
the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge, the power under Section 226 of the
Constitution of India and inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
can be invoked.
13. In the present case, on admitted facts, following
circumstances are surfacing. Firstly, there is a chequered history of civil
{8}
crapln 4044.19.odt
dispute between the parties. Civil suit is filed by the applicants seeking
decree of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit property purchased
by them under registered sale deed, wherein, the informant is one of the
consenting party. The applicants have lodged several reports to police
much prior to the date of registration of present FIR indicating that they
have been consistently threatened of lodging complaints by informant's
family under Atrocities Act or the Penal Code. Secondly, similar modus
operandi has been adopted by first informant in respect of the other
purchasers of land and similar type of complaints are filed against them.
Thirdly, the FIR has been belatedly registered. In present case, prior to
registration of offence, the applicants have made applications to the
police authorities stipulating threats received by them regarding lodging
the FIR under the Atrocities Act. Narration of the incident as reported by
the first informant in her application dated 14.9.2019 (received on
17.9.2019) is altogether different than the contents of FIR on material
particulars constituting the offence.
14. The incident is alleged to have taken place in the private
land, which is apparently purchased by the applicants from family
members of the informant under registered sale deed and therefore, their
names have been mutated in the revenue records. Except the family
members of the informant, no other witness is cited in the charge sheet.
Apparently, offence has not taken place in public view. The allegations
regarding abuses on castes are general and vague in nature, without
material particulars. The mens rea to hurl castiest abuses in public view
to humiliate or insult the first informant cannot be gathered, to direct the
offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s). Although allegations
against the applicant No.2 regarding outraging modesty to constitute
{9}
crapln 4044.19.odt
offence under Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Atrocities Act, 1989 are
employed in FIR, such allegations are inconsistent with narration of
incident by first informant in application dated 14.9.2019. The first
informant has adopted similar modus operandi against other purchasers
of land from her family and appears to have constantly misusing the
provision of Atrocities Act as instrument to wreak vengeance.
15. Taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, we
are convinced that this is a fit case, wherein we should exercise our
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
preventing abuse of process of law. Hence, we pass the following order :-
ORDER
(1) The application is allowed.
(2) The FIR vide crime No. 335 of 2019 dated 25.9.2019
registered with Police Station Tuljapur, Taluka Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad
under Sections 354, 323, 447, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC and under Section
3(1)(w)(I) and (II) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities Act) is hereby quashed and set aside.
(3) The Charge sheet No. 128 of 2020 dated 20.5.2020, same is
numbered as Special Case No. 109 of 2020 pending before Special Court/
District and Sessions Court, Osmannabad, is hereby quashed and set
aside.
[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J]
grt/-
