Bombay High Court
Dr. Anil Kisan Vitnor vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 19 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:25210
616.25apeal
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.616 OF 2025
Dr. Anil s/o Kisan Vitnor ....APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
thr. the Sub Divisional Police Officer,
Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar
2. Priyanka w/o Sanjay Sagalgile ....RESPONDENTS
.....
Mr Subhash S. Nade, Advocate for Appellant
Mr G. O. Wattamwar, APP for Respondent No.1/State
Mr G. J. Pahilwan, Advocate for Respondent No.2
.....
CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
RESERVED DATE : 15 SEPTEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 19 SEPTEMBER 2025
ORDER :
1. By this appeal, the appellant is praying for quashing and
setting aside the order dated 30/09/2024, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, Ahmednagar, District
Ahmednagar, in Special Case No.337/2023, whereby the said
application preferred by the appellant for discharge under Section 227
of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected.
616.25apeal
2. The aforesaid application was preferred in Crime bearing
FIR No.0995/2023 registered on 01/09/2023 with Rahuri Police
Station, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under
Sections 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Atrocities Act'). The FIR came to
be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2/ informant (Priyanka
Sanjay Sagalgile).
3. The appellant herein is the Dentist by profession and
staying at village Manjari, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar and
having his clinic at Takli-Miya, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahilyanagar.
In the said Takli-Miya village, the informant alongwith her family
resides. The aforesaid Crime No.0995/2023 is registered on
01/09/2023 on the basis of the report lodged by respondent No.2/
informant, stating therein that she is resident of village Takli-Miya,
Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. On 01/09/2025, at around 6:15
in the evening, she had gone to the clinic of the appellant for taking
treatment for her toothache alongwith her husband. Her husband
dropped her and she alone went to the clinic of the appellant. It is
alleged that after having treatment on her toothache, there was verbal
616.25apeal
exchange between the appellant and the informant on paying fees and
reaching the clinic lately. According to the informant, the appellant
insisted for paying the fees, however, according to her, she informed
him that her husband would be paying him after some time. Upon the
same, there took exchange of words between them and the appellant
alleged to have abused the informant by referring her caste. She
alleged to have called her husband Sanjay. Her husband reached the
clinic alongwith Surendra Vijay Sangle and Sanjay Gopinath
Sagalgile. The informant told the incident to her husband. The
appellant also alleged to have abused them by referring to their caste
and therefore, the informant has accordingly lodged the report with the
Police and the FIR was registered.
4. After the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed
charge-sheet. Thereafter, the appellant has filed application for
discharge before the learned Sessions Court, which came to be rejected
and therefore, the appellant has approached this Court for quashing
and setting aside the order of the learned Sessions Court and for
discharging him for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
616.25apeal
5. Heard learned Advocate Mr Nade for the appellant,
learned APP Mr Wattamwar for the respondent No.1/ State and learned
Advocate Mr Pahilwan for respondent No.2/informant.
6. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant, the
informant has lodged false FIR and the appellant has been deliberately
falsely implicated in the crime by the informant. The appellant is not
staying in the same village where the informant resides. As such, he is
not aware about the caste of the informant. The appellant and his wife
are well qualified and as such, they are practicing as a Doctors
(Dentists) and never indulged in such a type of criminal activities.
According to him, in order to avoid to pay the fees of the appellant, the
informant has deliberately filed false FIR. There are adjacent
witnesses who have not supported the prosecution. He apparently took
me through those statements of the witnesses. Only one witness,
namely, Surendra Vijay Sangle, who is known to the informant and
also friend of husband of informant, alleged to have witnessed the
incidence of abusing on the staircase. However, upon close scrutiny of
statement of said witness, there appears different version than the
statement given by the informant as regards hurling abuses. The
statements of the witnesses are thus contradictory and those who are
616.25apeal
closely related with the informant, they have supported the informant,
however, those who were independent, have not stated in accordance
with the informant.
7. Mr Nade, learned Advocate for the appellant also
submitted before me that the alleged incident of hurling of abuses took
place, according to the informant, inside the clinic, and thus, it can not
be said to be the spot which is falling under the public view, as no
other witness was present there. According to the learned Advocate,
there is no prima facie offence made out under the provisions of the
Atrocities Act against the present appellant.
8. Per contra, learned APP Mr Jadhav appearing for
respondent No1. /State and learned Advocate Mr Pahilwan appearing
for respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for
discharging the appellant. According to them, the appellant is
involved in a serious crime and he has deliberately insulted a woman
belonging to the scheduled caste category. The incident took place in
front of other members of public and they have supported the
prosecution case and as such, learned Sessions Court rightly rejected
application of the appellant for discharging him. Therefore, they
prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.
616.25apeal
9. After having heard the learned advocates for the
respective parties and after going through the material available on
record including investigation papers made available to me, it is to be
seen that whether, the ingredients of the FIR do constitute commission
of prima facie offence against the appellant.
10. In paragraph No.9 of the judgment in Vilas Pandurang
Pawar and another vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2012) 8
SCC 795, the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that the duty is
cast on the Court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find
out whether, the offence under Section 3(1) of the Atrocities Act has
been prima facie made out.
11. In landmark judgment on the issue delivered by the
Honourable Supreme Court in Shajan Skaria vs. State of Kerala,
2024 SCC Online SC 2249 : 2024 INSC 625, the guidelines for
determining the issue as regards "when can it be said that a prima
facie case is made out in a given FIR/ complaint?", has been
elaborately discussed. In paragraph Nos.47 and 48 of this judgment,
the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"47. Prima facie is a Latin term that translates to "at
first sight" or "based on first impression". The expression
"where no prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a
616.25apeal
complaint or FIR" should be understood as "when based on
first impression, no offence is made out as shown in the FIR or
the complaint". This means that when the necessary ingredients
to constitute the offence under the Act, 1989 are not made out
upon the reading of the complaint, no case can be said to exist
prima facie.
48. As a sequitur, if the necessary ingredients to
constitute the offence under the Act, 1989 are not disclosed on
the prima facie reading of the allegations levelled in the
complaint or FIR, then in such circumstances, as per the
consistent exposition by various decisions of this Court, the bar
of Section 18 would not apply and the courts would not be
absolutely precluded from granting pre-arrest bail to the
accused persons."
12. After going through the case laws, it is necessary to
examine in such cases, whether, a prima facie case is made out against
the appellant or not? It is pertinent to note that the appellant and his
wife are the Dentists. They are practicing in a village Takli-Miya and
residents of village Manjari, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. The
appellant is having his practice there since many years. The informant
appears to have approached the applicant for treatment of her
toothache. Her husband dropped her to the said clinic and he left that
place. The informant went to the clinic of the appellant. After having
treatment, there appears to be verbal exchange of words on account of
payment of fees and also reaching the clinic lately. The initial incident
of abusing according to the informant took place inside the clinic.
Then she appears to have called her husband. Her husband Sanjay
616.25apeal
appears to have asked the other witness, namely, Surendra Vijay
Sangle for paying him Rs.500/- as he wanted to pay the fees of the
appellant. It also appears that alongwith her husband, the said witness
Surendra also reached the spot and they saw that the appellant was
quarreling with the informant and when they reached there, they also
been given same ill-treatment by the appellant. The prosecution story
put forth by the informant is having many loopholes. The incident
which is reiterated by the witnesses, who are belonging to the nearby
adjacent places, have not supported the version of the informant. On
the contrary, they have stated that no allegation of hurling abuses by
referring to the caste took place. Those who were accompanying her
husband and closely related to the informant, they have supported her
case.
13. Thus, there being no independent witnesses in support of
the informant, as such, the prima facie case cannot be said to be made
out against the appellant. The quarrel appears to have taken place on
account of non-payment of fees of the appellant and the informant
therefore filed the FIR under the provisions of Atrocities Act. Record
also shows that the appellant herein also filed report bearing Crime
No.0996/2023 against the informant and her relatives for the offence
616.25apeal
punishable under Sections 323, 427, 452, 504, 506 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the appellant, the informant
and her relatives have ransacked properties of his clinic.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it can be
safely concluded that there is no prima facie case made out against the
appellant and the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions
Court is not maintainable. Thus, the instant appeal deserves to be
allowed by discharging the appellant. Hence, I pass the following
order:
ORDER
a) The present Criminal Appeal stands allowed.
b) The impugned order dated 30/09/2024, passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Ahmednagar, in
Special Case No.337/2023, is quashed and set aside.
c) The appellant is hereby discharged for the offence
punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]
sjk
