[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Munsif Aziz Khan And Another vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Police ... on 16 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:664-DB
Cri.APL538.23.odt 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL)NO. 538/2023
1. Munsif Aziz Khan,
Aged about 45 years, Occ - Agriculturist,
R/o. Gandhi Nagar, Malegaon,
Tq. Malegaon, District - Washim
2. Afrozkahn @ Bhola s/o Aziz Khan,
Aged 49 years, Occ - Agriculturist,
R/o. Gandhi Nagar, Malegaon,
Tq. Malegaon, District - Washim
... APPLICANTS
...VERSUS...
1. State Of Maharashtra,
Through its Police Station Officer,
Police Station Jaulka (Railway),
Tq. Malegaon, Dist. Washim.
2. Lilabai Jijiba Gudade,
Aged about 75 years, Occ- Household,
R/o. Pipla, Tq. Malegaon, Dist. Washim
...NON-APPLICANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rahul S. Kurekar, Advocate for applicants
Mr. Mahesh Rai, Advocate for non-applicant no. 2
Ms. Shamsi Haider, APP for non-applicant/State
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 16th DECEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 16th JANUARY, 2026.
Cri.APL538.23.odt 2/8
JUDGMENT (PER : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned
Counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, praying for quashing of the charge sheet no.
18/2022 filed by the non-applicant no. 1 in the Court of Special
Judge & Additional sessions Judge-1, Mangrulpir arising out of First
Information report vide Crime No. 390/2021 for offences
punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860, and Sections 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Atrocities Act'). It further prays for
quashing the proceedings culminating in Special Trial No. 7/2022
arising out of the said charge sheet bearing no. 18/2022.
3. It is the case of the non-applicant no. 2 and as per the First
Information Report that on 13.10.2021, she was on her field and
there was a standing crop of Soyabeen and Toor. At that time, the
applicants came over the said field and started cutting the said
crops to which the first informant objected. The applicants not only
continued cutting the said crops but abused the non-applicant no.
2 / first informant on her caste and stated that field belongs to
them. Thus, according to the First Information Report, standing
crops amounting to approximately Rs. 99,000/- in 18 sacs was cut
by the applicants and was taken away. It is on these allegations that
the First Information Report was lodged which is challenged in the
present application.
4. We have heard Mr. Rahul S. Kurekar, learned counsel for
applicants and Ms. Shamsi Haider, APP for non-applicant/State as
also Mr. Mahesh Rai, learned counsel for non-applicant no. 2.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant Mr. R. S. Kurekar, submits
that the lodging of First Information Report is noting but an abuse
of the process of Court and there cannot be any theft in once own
property since the field belongs to the applicants. It is his further
submission that the First Information Report alleges an incident
which happened on 13.10.2021 while the Report is lodged on
23.12.2021 which is approximately after two months. He further
submits that a bare perusal of the First Information Report and the
charge sheet clearly demonstrates that the applicants are falsely
implicated in the crime and therefore in his submission, that it
would be a fit case to exercise inherent powers under Section 482
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor while
vehemently opposing the contentions advanced by the learned
counsel for the applicants states that a meaningful reading of the
First Information Report and the charge sheet would reveal that
cognizable offence has been made out against the applicants and
therefore prays for rejection of the application.
7. Learned counsel for the non-applicant no. 2 also supports the
contention advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the non-applicant no. 1/State and states that their is enough
material to proceed against the applicants collected by the
investigating agency. He also submits that statements of the
complainant point towards the exact role of the applicants in the
offence and therefore prays for rejection of the application.
8. In the backdrop of these submissions, we have appreciated
the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties
and have gone through the charge sheet filed in the matter. As can
be seen from the First Information Report, the entire edifice is on
the applicants allegedly barging over the property and taking away
standing crops amounting to Rs. 99,000/-. Thus, according to the
First Information Report, a theft has been committed. However, the
charge sheet reveals that the property has been sold to one Muskan
Parveen Munisif Khan on 09.05.2019 and she happens to be the
wife of the applicant no. 1. The learned counsel for the applicant
has rightly pointed out that the non-applicant no. 2 and her family
members are filing numerous complaints against the applicants
leading to lodging of the First Information Report. He also submits
that one of such First Information Report and the consequent
charge sheet is already challenged in this Court vide Criminal
Application (APL) No. 587/2023 wherein more or less identical
allegations are made. It is rightly submitted by the learned counsel
for the applicant that the dispute is entirely civil in nature. Section
379 speaks about punishment for theft while Section 378 defines
theft and contemplates that whoever intending to take dishonestly
any immovable property out of the possession of any person
without that person's consent is said to have committed theft.
However, in the present case as stated supra the property in
question belongs to the wife of the applicant and has been
purchased by her by way of a registered sale deed. Therefore, it is
not possible for a person to commit theft of his own property.
9. Furthermore, as far as allegations for offences punishable
under Section 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act is
concerned, as can be seen from the First Information Report, it is
not even the first informant's case that the said abuses were made
only because the non-applicant no. 2 belongs to particular caste.
Furthermore, there was no intention to humiliate the person in the
name of caste which would attract the offences under the Atrocities
Act. Thus, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to
an abuse of the process of Court and, therefore, the situation
squarely fall within the laid down parameters of State of Haryana &
Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC
335, which is reproduced below :-
"(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)............
(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 make out a case
against the accused.
(4)............
(5)............
(6)............
(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."
10. We therefore pass the following order :-
ORDER
i) Application is allowed.
ii) Charge sheet no. 18/2022 filed by the non-applicant no. 1 in
the Court of Special Judge & Additional sessions Judge-1,
Mangrulpir arising out of First Information report vide Crime No.
390/2021 for offences punishable under Section 379 read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3(1)(g) and
3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 culminating into Special Trial No. 7/2022
before the Special Judge & Additional sessions Judge-1, Mangrulpir
is quashed and set aside to the extent of the applicants i.e. applicant
no. 1 - Munsif Aziz Khan and applicant no. 2 - Afrozkahn @ Bhola
s/o Aziz Khan.
iii) Application is disposed of in above mentioned terms.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Shubham
