[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Shailendra Bankebihari Singh vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 12 March, 2026
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2026:BHC-AS:12132-DB
KSG 231-WP-1356-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1356 OF 2023
Shailendra Bankebihari Singh
Age : 51 yrs; Occ : Business,
Residing at : 103, Air India Maharaja CHS,
Plot No-16, Sector-9, Vashi,
Navi Mumbai-400 703. ... Petitioner
V/s.
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through Pali Police Station,
Sudhagad Vide C.R. No.189/2022.
2) Laxman Raja Waghmare
Age : 66 yrs; Occ : Wage Labour,
Residing at : Ghodpapadadiwasiwadi,
Varadagaon, P.O. Jambhulpada,
Sudhagad, Dist-Raigad. ... Respondent
_______________________________________
Mr. Rajiv Chavan, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Rashmi Tiwari, Ms. Asmi Desai,
Ms. Sonam Pandey i/b Ms. Bhairavi Waravdekar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vinod Chate, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State.
_______________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 7th AUGUST, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 12th MARCH, 2026.
1/10
::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 12/03/2026 20:51:58 :::
KSG 231-WP-1356-2023.doc
JUDGMENT (Per : A. S. GADKARI, J.) :
-
1) By this Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India read
with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.'), the Petitioner
is seeking relief of quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing CR No.189 of
2022, dated 27th December 2022, registered with Pali Police Station, Taluka
Sudhagad, District Raigad, under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2) Heard Mr. Rajiv Chavan, learned senior Advocate for the
Petitioner and Mr. Vinod Chate, learned APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Perused entire record and the Affidavit in Reply filed by the Respondent No.2
dated 21st August, 2023.
3) Record indicates that, by an Order dated 14th February, 2023,
this Court had directed that, the investigation of the present crime to
continue however chargesheet will not be filed without leave of the Court.
The said relief was thereafter continued from time to time. By an Order
dated 1st December, 2023, the Petition was admitted and the ad-interim relief
granted by Order dated 14th February, 2023, was confirmed as interim relief.
3.1) It be noted here that, the Respondent No.2 has been duly served
with the Notice of the Petition and after admission of Petition, Rule Notice
has also been duly served upon Respondent No.2. The note put up by the
Registry clearly mentions about the said fact. Despite service of notice and
KSG 231-WP-1356-2023.doc
granting an opportunity, non appeared for Respondent No.2.
4) It is the prosecution case that, the Respondent No.2 belongs to
Hindu religion and of Katkari Caste. That, there is a water hand pump next
to Jambhulpada Kalamb Road adjacent to the village of the Respondent
No.2, where the women from the said village fills water. From there, a road
leading to the farm house of the Petitioner proceeds. On the side of the said
road, there is a cattle shade of Respondent No.2. Recently Petitioner
compounded the area where the Respondent No.2 has usage of the footway.
The Petitioner had knowledge that, the Respondent No.2 belongs to Katkari
community and people of village as Katkaris. That, the land adjacent to
Ghodpapad Adivasiwadi was brought by Petitioner and he put a compound
of wires thereof three months prior to the date of lodgment of crime. It
blocked the said road of Respondent No.2 leading to the said water hand
pump. Therefore villagers of Ghodpapad Adivasiwadi had conveyed a
meeting of villagers. In the said meeting, the Respondent No.2 alongwith
Dnyaneshwar Harishchandra Ghogarkar, Harishchandra Aagasha Waghmare,
Ram Nathu Waghmare, Ankush Barku Waghmare, Dnyaneshwar Shantaram
Ghogarkar, Govind Tulshiram Waghmare, Kaluram Chander Pawar, Nivrutti
Laxman Waghmare and Suresh Kisan Walekar, were present and requested
the Petitioner to leave some space for their usage, upon which Petitioner told
them 'you do your work, I will do the work as per my method' and left the
spot.
KSG 231-WP-1356-2023.doc
4.1) That, on 25th November 2022, at about 5.00 p.m., when the
Respondent No.2 was tethering the cattle in his cattle shed the Petitioner
came there and started bickering with him in loud voice in Marathi language.
At that time, the wife of Respondent No.2 namely Smt. Laxmi Waghmare, his
daughter Smt. Vitha Deepak Jadhav, and Shri. Kaluram Pawar from the said
village as well as sister of Respondent No.2 namely Smt.Anusaya
Harishchandra Ghogarkar, her daughter Ms.Rani Dnyaneshwar Ghogarkar
were present. It is alleged that, the Petitioner abused the Respondent No.2 on
his caste. The Petitioner, thereafter constructed compound on the said land
and blocked the road of hand water pump. In this brief premise, present
crime is registered on 27th December, 2022.
5) Mr. Chavan, learned senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner
pointed out the material on record including the contents of the F.I.R. and
submitted that, the lodgment of present crime is manifestly attended with
malafide and is maliciously instituted with ulterior motive to wreak
vengeance against the Petitioner. He submitted that, there is unexplained
delay of about 30 days while lodging the crime. That, the incident of alleged
abuses on caste to the Respondent No.2 has taken place in a cow shade,
which was neither a public place nor was within the public view. He
submitted that, there is no independent witness to the said incident and the
witnesses cited by the Respondent No.2 are either his friends or close relatives.
In support of his contentions, Mr. Chavan, relied on following decisions.
KSG 231-WP-1356-2023.doc
(i) Swaran Singh and Others Vs. State Through Standing Counsel
and Anr, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435,
(ii) Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr, reported in
(2020) 10 SCC 710,
(iii) Javed Raza Shroff Vs. State of Maharashtra, (through the
office of the Government Pleader) and Anr, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 7223 :
(2023) 1 Bom CR (Cri) 352,
(iv) Jagdish Sajjankumar Banka Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr,
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 581 : 2023 Cri LJ (NOC 199) 66.
6) Mr. Chavan, therefore prayed that, present Petition be allowed
by quashing the said crime.
7) Learned APP vehemently opposed the Petition. He submitted
that, the delay in lodging F.I.R. is meager. That, the Petitioner being an
Adivasi and semiliterate person, after consulting his fellow villagers has
lodged the crime. He submitted that, from the F.I.R a prima-facie case is
made out. That, the alleged incident has occurred at a 'public place' and
within the 'public view'. That, the judgments relied upon by the learned
senior Advocate are not applicable to the present case. He submitted that,
the Respondent No.2 has filed an Affidavit dated 21 st August, 2023, and the
same may be considered. He therefore prayed that, the Petition may be
dismissed.
8) Record indicates that, on 26 th August, 2015, Petitioner had
purchased an agricultural land admeasuring 91.5 ares in village
Jambhulpada, Taluka Sudhagad, District Raigad, by executing a Sale-deed.
KSG 231-WP-1356-2023.doc
That, on 12th August, 2022, the concerned Surveyor conducted survey of the
said land. At the time of the said survey the Respondent No.2 realized that,
he has erected a shade/hut in the land of the Petitioner and therefore
approached the Petitioner for willful and amicable settlement. The
Respondent No.2 accordingly executed Consent Letter dated 9 th August,
2022. The said Consent Letter is duly signed by the Petitioner and
Respondent No.2. As per the Consent Letter, the Petitioner has paid the
Respondent No.2 a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- by way of cheques and Rs.30,000/-
in cash. The Petitioner thereafter erected boundaries on his said agricultural
land. The said boundaries/compound was of iron angles and wires. On 10 th
November, 2022, caretaker of the Petitioner namely Mr. Roshan G. Gaikwad
informed him that, some unknown person have uprooted the 66 iron angles
and iron wires fixed thereof and stolen it. The Petitioner therefore registered
CR No.156 of 2022 on 16th November, 2022, with Pali Police Station, District
Raigad, under Sections 379 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against
unknown persons.
8.1) At the time of conducting survey, Petitioner had also noticed
that, in his land some houses and/or shades were illegally constructed and
therefore he made a Complaint dated 21 st November, 2022, with Group
Grampanchayat, Jambhulpada, Taluka Sudhagad and requested it to stop
construction of the said houses and also to remove the said encroachment.
The said Group Grampanchayat therefore issued a Notice dated 27 th
KSG 231-WP-1356-2023.doc
December, 2022, to the Respondent No.2 and called upon him to produce
necessary and relevant documents before the Sarpanch of the said village for
verifying the claim of the Petitioner. As the villagers of the said Ghodpapad
Adivasiwadi were facing difficulties for getting water from the hand pump,
as stated in the F.I.R., an meeting was conveyed wherein apart from the other
villagers Mr.Kaluram Pawar, was also present. The said fact is stated by the
Respondent No.2 in paragraph No.2 of his F.I.R. In this admitted facts on
record present crime is registered on 27 th December, 2022, for an alleged
offences committed by the Petitioner on 25th November, 2022.
9) Perusal of F.I.R. clearly indicates that, there is delay of about 30
days in lodging the crime. The said delay has not at all been explained by the
Respondent No.2. It appears from the record that, the Respondent No.2 is a
semiliterate person. The alleged incident of abusing the Respondent No.2 on
his caste took place in the evening of 25 th November, 2022, in the cow shade
of Respondent No.2. At that place all the family members and the said
Kaluram Pawar were present. The witnesses are either close relatives of the
Respondent No.2 or friend or interested persons only and there was no
independent witness present thereof. The said incident did not take place
either in the 'public view' or at a 'public place'.
10) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh and
Others Vs. State Through Standing Counsel and Anr (supra), has held that,
abuses on the caste should be in the presence of independent witnesses. The
KSG 231-WP-1356-2023.doc
independent persons may not be those persons who are close relatives,
friends of the complainant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further
elaborated the terms 'public place' and 'public view' in the said decision.
10.1) As per the contents of F.I.R., the allegations of abusing the
Respondent No.2 on his caste were within the four walls of his cow shade
and therefore in view of the decision in the case of Swaran Singh and Others
Vs. State Through Standing Counsel and Anr (supra), it cannot be said to be
a place within the public view, as none of the said witness present at the
scene of offence, was an independent witness.
11) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana &
Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, while
enumerating the powers under Section 482 of the Indian Penal Code and
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in para No.102 has observed as
under :-
"102. 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 extraordinary 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 channelized 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
KSG 231-WP-1356-2023.doc
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 FIR 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 make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR 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) After considering the entire material available on record it
clearly appears to us that, the case of the Petitioner is covered by clause (7)
of Paragraph No.102 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., (supra).
KSG 231-WP-1356-2023.doc
13) In view of the above, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (B)
13.1) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
( RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )
KIRAN
SANJAY
GHUGE
