Ravindra S/O Shialigramji Bhuyar vs State Of Maha Thr Pso, Ps Sitbuldi
2025 Latest Caselaw 4539 Bom

Bombay High Court

Ravindra S/O Shialigramji Bhuyar vs State Of Maha Thr Pso, Ps Sitbuldi on 7 April, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:3738




              Judgment

                                                                 383 apeal59.25

                                           1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.59 OF 2025

              Ravindra s/o Shaligramji Bhuyar,
              aged about 50 years, occupation: regional
              transport officer, r/o flat No.101,
              Himalaya Galaxy-1,
              near University Campus, Amravati Road,
              Nagpur-440 033.                   ..... Appellant.

                                   :: V E R S U S ::

              1. State of Maharashtra,
              through Police Station Officer,
              Sitabuldi Police Station, Nagpur.

              2. The State of Maharashtra,
              through the Assistant Commissioner
              of Police Sitabuldi Division, Nagpur City,
              Nagpur.

              3. "X", the informant
              in FIR No.474/2023
              registered at Police Station Sitabuldi,
              Nagpur.                            ..... Respondents.

              Shri R.R.Vyas, Counsel for the Appellant.
              Mrs.Ritu Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
              Respondent Nos.1 & 2/State.
              Shri Sameer Sonwane, Counsel Appointed for Respondent
              No.2/Informant.


                                                                        .....2/-
 Judgment

                                               383 apeal59.25

                              2



CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSED ON : 06/03/2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 07/04/2025

JUDGMENT

1. By this appeal, the appellant (accused) has

challenged order dated 12.12.2024 passed below Exh.1 by

learned Special Judge, Nagpur (learned Judge below) in

B.Summary Case No.1/2024, in connection with Crime

No.474/2023 registered under Sections 354-A, 294, 509,

and 506 of the IPC and 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va), and 3(w) of

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the B-

Summary Report is rejected.

2. The accused is the Government Officer working as

the Regional Transport Officer. FIR was registered against

him on the basis of report lodged by respondent No.3 (the

informant) who is also a Regional Transport Officer

.....3/-

Judgment

383 apeal59.25

alleging that the accused has outraged her modesty on

various occasions being her superior officer knowing that

she belongs to the Scheduled Caste. The allegation of the

respondent No.3 is that the accused was transferred to the

Regional Transport Officer at Nagpur and he used to taunt

and comment her as to her looks and also was using

obscene words. He used to sit in front of her hours

together. The specific allegation levelled by her is that in

December 2022, the accused called her in his chamber and

shown her obscene photographs and also threatened her.

On the basis of the said report, the police registered the

crime.

3. After registration of the crime, the investigation

officer has recorded various statements of the witnesses as

to the incidents dated 12.4.2022, May 2022, December

2022, 17.12.2022, 19.5.2023, 10.1.2023 and so on. After

the investigation, the investigating officer submitted B-

.....4/-

Judgment

383 apeal59.25

Summary Report that no substance is found in the

allegation during the investigation and, therefore B-

Summary Report deserves to be granted.

4. Learned Judge below issued notice to the informant

on the said report. The informant objected the B-

Summary Report by filing protest application and after

hearing both the sides, learned Judge below rejected B-

Summary Report.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order

impugned in the appeal, the accused preferred this appeal

on the ground that during investigation it revealed to the

investigating officer on the basis of various statements that

no substance is found in the application. Learned Judge

below has also not considered that various reports are

filed against the informant as to her misconduct at various

places. She was shown as accused in FIR No.238/2016

.....5/-

Judgment

383 apeal59.25

registered at Barshi City Police Station, Solapur under

Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477, 120-B, 109, and

201 of the IPC. The another offence is registered vide

Crime No.59/2016 at Anandngar Police Station,

Usmanabad under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 474,

477A, 120-B, 109, and 201 of the IPC and under Sections

7, 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and

Crime No.238/2023 registered at Ramtek Police Station,

district Nagpur under Sections 7(a) and 12 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, Crime No.7/2024 registered

at Bajaj Nagar Police Station, Nagpur under Section 307

and 3/25 of the Arms Act. In the Crime Nos.7/2024 and

59/2016, this court has not protected her by granting

anticipatory bail. Learned Judge below before rejecting B-

summary Report ought to have appreciated that the victim

has set criminal law in motion with mala fide intention

and no proper reasons are assigned by learned Judge

.....6/-

Judgment

383 apeal59.25

below. In view of that, the order passed by learned Judge

below deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. Heard learned counsel Shri R.R.Vyas for the

accused, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs.Ritu

Sharma for the State, and learned counsel Shri Sameer

Sonwane for the the informant.

7. learned counsel for the accused submitted that it is

imperative on the part of learned Judge below to assign

reasons while rejecting the B-Summary Report. He invited

my attention to impugned order and submitted that

learned Judge below has only reproduced the B-Summary

Report and rejected the same. No separate reasons are

assigned and also has not taken into consideration that the

accused is superior officer of the informant and various

misconducts are reported to him and he should give a

favourable report in her favour and to pressurize him as

.....7/-

Judgment

383 apeal59.25

he was conducting enquiry against her, this false report is

filed. No specific instances are narrated by the informant

to substantiate her contentions. For these grounds itself,

the appeal deserves to be allowed.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

supported the B-Summary Report and submitted that

during investigation no substance is found and, therefore,

the B-Summary Report is filed.

9. Learned counsel for the victim supported the order

passed by learned Judge below and submitted that the

statement of the victim itself is sufficient to attract the

offence against the accused. Learned Judge below has

rightly rejected the application by assigning the reasons.

Learned Judge below is empowered to reject the B-

Summary Report. In view of that, the appeal is devoid of

merits and liable to be dismissed.

.....8/-

Judgment

383 apeal59.25

10. In view of the above submissions, it is necessary to

go through some relevant provisions of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

11. The provisions of Section 156(1) and (2) of the

Code describes statutory powers are given to officer

incharge of the police station to investigate cognizable

offence case. The similar powers are also assigned to the

authorized officer under the provisions of Scheduled Caste

and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

and for the said purpose the SDO is appointed as an

authorized officer for the investigation. Sections 169, 170,

and 173 of the Code requires to be read together.

12. Section 169 read with Section 170 of the Code

shows that if, upon an investigation under the provisions

of Chapter XII of the Code it reveals to the officer incharge

of police station that there is no sufficient evidence or

.....9/-

Judgment

383 apeal59.25

reasonable grounds to suspicion to justify the prosecution

against the accused, he can release such persons after

taking bond requiring his appearance before the

Magistrate, if in future the same becomes necessary. The

report in Section 173(2) of the Code is required to be

submitted after completion of investigation and even

when the officer is the opinion that no sufficient material

is against the accused, in view of Section 173(2)(d),

specific opinion formed by the police officer is required to

be mentioned in the report. Section 173(4) shows that

the Magistrate can reject the report.

13. Thus, the law is that the Magistrate is not bound to

accept such report.

14. Reading of Section 170 with 173 reveals that if the

investigating officer forms an opinion that there is

sufficient evidence or reasonable grounds of suspicion to

.....10/-

Judgment

383 apeal59.25

justify the forwarding of the accused to the Magistrate,

such Officer shall forward the accused under custody to

the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance on Police

report and to try the accused or to commit him for trial.

Section 173 (2)(d) shows it needs to be specifically

mentioned in the report filed under the section by the

Investigating Officer that the offence has been committed

and if it has been committed, the name of the accused,

who is being forwarded to the Magistrate for commission

of the offence. Section 173(2)(g) of the Code shows that it

needs to be informed to the Magistrate that the accused

has been forwarded to the Magistrate after forming

opinion as required under Section 170 of the Code. The

definition of police report is given in Section 2(r) of the

Code which shows that i) when the opinion is formed that

it is not a fit case for forwarding the accused under section

170 and case falls under Section 169 of the Code or ii)

.....11/-

Judgment

383 apeal59.25

when the opinion is formed that it is a fit case to forward

the accused under Section 170 of the Code, the report is

required to be prepared as per the provisions of Section

173 of the Code. The provisions of Sections 173 and

190(1)(b) of the Code together show that when such

report is submitted, there is discretionary power to the

Magistrate either to take cognizance of the offence or to

refuse to take cognizance.

15. Thus, the above provisions show that the discretion

is vested in the Magistrate but such discretion needs to be

used judiciously. In a case, where a Magistrate decides not

to take cognizance of an offense and drops proceedings,

and there are insufficient grounds against some persons

mentioned in the FIR, the Magistrate must give notice to

the informant and give him an opportunity to hear at the

time of consideration of the report. However, either from

the provisions of the Code or from the principles of natural

.....12/-

Judgment

383 apeal59.25

justice, no obligation on the Magistrate to issue notice to

the injured person or to relative of the deceased for

providing such persons an opportunity to hear at the time

of consideration of the report can be spelled out, unless

such persons is the informant who lodged the FIR. But

even if such person not entitled to notice from the

Magistrate, he can appear before the Magistrate and make

his submissions when the report is considered by the

Magistrate for the purpose of deciding what action he

should take on the report. But, if the Magistrate decides

that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further

and drops the proceedings or takes the view that

though there is sufficient ground for proceeding against

others mentioned in the First Information Report, the

informant would certainly be prejudiced because the First

Information Report lodged by him would have failed of

its purpose; wholly or in part. Moreover, when the

.....13/-

Judgment

383 apeal59.25

interest of the informant in prompt and effective action

being taken on the First Information Report lodged by

him is clearly recognised by the provisions contained in

sub-section (2) of Section 154, sub-section (2) of Section

157 and sub-section (2) (ii) of Section 173, the officer of

the police station under Section 157(2) to notify to the

informant the fact that he is not going to investigate the

case and and under Section 73(2) the said officer is under

obligation to communicate the action taken by him and

report forwarded by him to the Magistrate. it must be

presumed that the informant would equally be interested

in seeing that the Magistrate takes cognizance of the

offence and issues process. There is no doubt that on a

consideration of the report made by the officer in charge

of a police station under sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173,

the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the

offence and issue process, the informant must be given an

.....14/-

Judgment

383 apeal59.25

opportunity of being heard so that he can make his

submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance

of the offence and issue process.

16. It is well settled that if the court is of the opinion

that the 'B' Summary Report submitted by the police has to

be rejected, by expressing its judicious opinion, after

applying its mind to the contents of 'B' report, the court

has to reject the 'B' Summary Report.

17. The application of judicious mind is distributable

only in the order reasons are live-links between mind of

the decision taken to the controversy in question and the

decision arrived that. Reason and application of mind are

essential for judicial order to sustain scrutiny of law.

Admittedly, Reasons in every circumstances need not be

elaborate, but nevertheless should bear application of

mind.

.....15/-

Judgment

383 apeal59.25

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Vishnu

Kumar Tiwari vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in

AIR 2019 SC 3482, referring its earlier decision, held that

it is undoubtedly true that before a Magistrate proceeds to

accept a final report under Section 173 and exonerate the

accused, it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to apply his

mind to the contents of the protest petition and arrive at a

conclusion thereafter. While the Investigating Officer may

rest content by producing the final report, which,

according to him, is the culmination of his efforts, the duty

of the Magistrate is not one limited to readily accepting

the final report. It is incumbent upon him to go through

the materials, and after hearing the complainant and

considering the contents of the protest petition, finally

decide the future course of action to be, whether to

continue with the matter or to bring the curtains down.

.....16/-

Judgment

383 apeal59.25

19. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of

Ramswaroop Soni vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and

anr, reported in AIR 2019 SC 3801, also held that the law

is well-settled that in case a final report is filed under

Section 173(2) of the Code stating that no offence is made

out against the accused, any of the following courses can

be adopted by the Magistrate: (a) he may accept the

report which was filed by the police in which case the

proceedings would stand closed; (b) He may not accept

the report and may take cognizance in the matter on the

basis of such final report which was presented by the

police; and (c) if he is not satisfied by the investigation so

undertaken by the police, he may direct further

investigation in the matter.

The law is further well-settled that the judicial

discretion to be used by the Magistrate at such stage has to

fall in either of the three aforesaid categories.

.....17/-

Judgment

383 apeal59.25

20. The position is, therefore, now well settled that

upon receipt of a police report under section 173(2) of the

Code, a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an

offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code even if the

police report is to the effect that no case is made out

against the accused. The Magistrate can take into account

the statements of the witnesses examined by the police

during the investigation and take cognizance of the

offence complained of and order issue of process to the

accused. Section 190(1)(b) does not lay down that a

Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only if the

investigation officer gives an opinion that the investigation

has made out a case against the accused. The Magistrate

can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating

officer and independently apply his mind to the facts

emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of

the case, if he thinks fit, exercise his powers under Section

.....18/-

Judgment

383 apeal59.25

190(1)(b) and direct the issue of process to the accused.

Where the Magistrate decides that there is no sufficient

ground for proceeding further and drops the proceeding or

takes the view that though there is sufficient ground for

proceeding against some, and insufficient material in

respect of the informant would certainly be prejudiced.

Therefore, notice to the informant and grant of

opportunity of being heard in the matter becomes

mandatory.

21. The record of the present matter, which is mostly

not considered by learned Judge below, shows that the

various incidents narrated by the informant are not

substantiated by any material. The report of the

investigating officer shows that as to the incidents dated

May 2022 and December 2022, there are inconsistent

statements of the informant that is also not stated the

exact date on which the alleged incident has taken place.

.....19/-

Judgment

383 apeal59.25

As per the statement of the victim, the incident dated

17.12.2022 took place in presence of Sanket Gaikwad.

The statement of said Sanket nowhere substantiates the

said allegations during his statement. The incident dated

19.5.23 wherein it is alleged that the accused threatened

husband of the informant, but statement of husband is

also inconsistent. Moreover, these statements are to be

considered in the light of various crimes registered against

the informant at various police stations. The documents

further show that the accused who was superior officer

has passed the order of distribution of work amongst

Inspectors of Motor Vehicles and refused the request of the

informant to make her member of flying squad or to be

posted at border check-post was not accepted by the

accused. The documents further show that the informant

is junior to another officer and was appointed as RTO at

Nagpur city and, therefore, the informant as well as officer

.....20/-

Judgment

383 apeal59.25

Vijay Chauhan was having grudge as the applicant

superseded them. Though statement of Vijay is recorded,

he has not disclosed the conversation took place between

the informant and the accused. On the basis of the

complaint lodged by the informant, grievance redressal

committee was constituted and in the said complaint the

incident dated 10.1.2023 is totally absent. Perusal of the

case diary shows that the informant and her husband both

were showing as Inspectors of Motor Vehicles and were

trapped in the month of February 2023 and May 2023

respectively in anti corruption cases and departmental

action was also taken against them. The record further

shows that the accused had also made various complaints/

representations to the police authorities against the

informant. As per the FIR, the first incident is of the year

2021 and continued upto January 2023, but the informant

has not made her grievance till January 2024. Thus, it can

.....21/-

Judgment

383 apeal59.25

be ascertained that there are internal dispute as to

seniority between the accused and informant and also

dispute as to distribution of duties. The allegation in the

FIR also shows that there is apprehension to the informant

that her husband would be implicated in corruption case.

This fact is absent in complaint.

22. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid facts and the

statements of various witnesses including the statements

of officials of RTO office, whose names are stated by the

informant, also not substantiate the allegations made by

the informant. There is no material to have circumstantial

check to the allegations made against the accused. In

view of these circumstances, there was no reason to

disbelieve the investigating officer who decided to file

report under Section 169 of the Code. It is already

observed that there are various disputes between the

informant and the accused as to the duties allotted by the

.....22/-

Judgment

383 apeal59.25

the accused. The informant is assigned with the duty of

RTO Inspector by superseding the other senior officers.

These facts are not considered by learned Judge below

and he has not applied the mind. It was expected that

learned Judge below should assign the reasons for not

accepting the report. The order impugned shows that

learned Special Judge only reproduced the report and

without assigning any reasons rejected the B-Summary

Report. If the accused is compelled to face trial, in view of

the aforesaid circumstances, it would amount to abuse of

process of law.

23. In this view of the matter, this court passes

following order:

ORDER

(1) The appeal is allowed.

.....23/-

Judgment

383 apeal59.25

(2) The order dated 12.12.2024 passed below Exh.1 by

learned Special Judge, Nagpur in B.Summary Case

No.1/2024 is set aside.

(3) The B-Summary Report is accepted.

(4) Fees of learned counsel Shri Sameer Sonwane

appointed for respondent No.3/informant be quantified

and the same be paid to him as per rules.

The appeal stands disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

!! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 09/04/2025 11:59:11