Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kunj Bihari Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 26 April, 2022
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Bench : Gwalior
*****************
SB:- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
MCRC 21344 of 2018
Kunj Bihari and Others
Vs.
State of MP and Another
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Rajiv Shrivastava, Counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Purushottam Tanwar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri RP Singh, Counsel for the respondent No.2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 23-04-2022
Whether approved for reporting : ...../......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on 26/04/2022)
Per Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J:-
The present petition u/S 482 of CrPC has been filed by
petitioners, seeking quashment of FIR registered at Crime
No.66/2018, dtd. 25-03-2018 by Police Station Indargarh,
District Datia for offences under Sections 323, 294, 506, 34 of
IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as well as
other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated thereof.
(2) As per the prosecution case, on receiving information
from respondent No.2 complainant Bhajju Vanshkar, son of
Dabbu Vanshkar, resident of Mohana Jat, Indargarh, District
Datia on 25-03-2018, Police Station Indargarh, District Datia
recorded a Dehati Nalishi at Crime No.08 of 2018 for the
above-said offences wherein it is alleged by complainant that
on the date of incident i.e. 25-03-2018 at around 12:00 pm he
along with sons Bhanu, Geetesh and grandson Raju was in his
agriculture land. At that time, Kunj Bihari (herein petitioner
No.1), Ramnarayan (herein petitioner No.2) and Sonu (herein
petitioner No.5) passed through his agriculture land on a
tractor and when he objected to it, all of them abused him by
calling his caste name. Thereafter, when he along with his
sons Bhanu, Geetesh and grandson Raju objected them not to
abuse them, all the accused persons started quarrel with him
and committed ''marpeet'' with them. Sukhe (herein petitioner
No.4), Pankaj (herein petitioner No.6) and Kaushal (herein
petitioner No.3) armed with ''lathi'' came there and threatened
to kill complainant party by calling their caste ''Dhanuka''. It
is further alleged that all the accused persons, thereafter,
started ''marpeet'' with them by means of lathi, kicks and fists,
as a result of which complainant sustained injuries on his both
legs and left knee and his sons Bhanu, Geetesh and grandson
Raju also sustained injuries on some parts of their bodies in
the incident. Kadore Patwa & Dhallu Patwa intervened the
matter and witnessed to the incident. Afterwards, they dialed
100 number and in injured condition at Indargarh Hospital,
complainant lodged aforesaid Dehati Nalishi, on the basis of
which Crime No.66/2018 has been registered against
petitioners for commission of offences as mentioned in para 1
of this order.
(3) It is contended on behalf of petitioners that the police
has registered the impugned FIR against petitioners without
holding any enquiry. If the entire contents of impugned FIR
are considered in its entirety that the petitioners have hurled
abuses by naming of caste '' Dhanuka'' at the alleged place of
occurrence, the same does not provide condition of "public
place within public view". Merely because, the aforesaid
word ''Danuka'' was used by the petitioners, would not mean
that it was used in order to intentionally insult or humiliate the
complainant party, who are belonging to Scheduled Tribe.
Prima facie, no offence under Atrocities Act is made out
against petitioners. It is further contended that there is a
previous dispute regarding the agricultural land and the
alleged incident took place all of a sudden. To avoid false
implication of an innocent, a preliminary enquiry should have
conducted by concerned police authorities in order to find out
as to whether allegations make out a case under the Atrocities
Act or not. Without following due procedure of law as well as
examining the real factual position of case and without
conducting inquiry in a free and fair manner, impugned FIR
has been lodged under the Atrocities Act by the police. In the
case at hand, allegations made against the petitioners are
frivolous and motivated. Reliance has been placed in this
regard by counsel for the petitioners in the case of Tulsiram
& Another vs. State of MP 2007(II) MPWN 70, Ram
Chandra & Another vs. State of MP, 2009(I)MPWN 77 as
well as the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of
Maharashtra & Another decided on 20th March, 2018 in
Criminal Appeal No.416 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No.5661 of 2017). It is further contended by the counsel for
the petitioners that vide order of the Tahsildar dated
07/12/2017, complainant Bhajju has been punished because
of encroachment on the public approach road and in pursuant
to the order of the Tahsildar, the police has also registered a
case against him. It is further contended that the land upon
which petitioners were passing through the approach land is
the Government land and it is not the land of the complainant
party. It is further contended that on the alleged date of
incident, the petitioners have also sustained fatal injuries
supported by medical evidence. In this regard, medical
documents of Pankaj and Kunj Bihari have been annexed with
Page Nos.35 to 36 of this petition. Hence, it is prayed that
impugned FIR as well as other subsequent criminal
proceedings initiated therefrom deserves to be quashed.
(4) Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as
complainant opposed the petition and submitted that there is
specific allegation of hurling abuses by saying ''Salley
Danuka Balo Ko Khatam Kar Do'' and also of causing
injuries to complainant party by petitioners. Hence, no case is
made made out for quashment of impugned FIR and other
subsequent criminal proceedings initiated thereof.
(5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned FIRs as well as documents available on record.
(6) It is not out of place to mention here that as per cross-
FIR bearing Crime No.208/2018 registered by petitioner No.1
Kunj Bihari at same Police Station Indargarh, District Datia
on 22-8-2018 at 07:00 pm, it is alleged him that on the same
date of incident i.e. 25-03-2018 at around 12:00 pm,
petitioner No.1 along with others were going to cut of their
wheat crops which were lying in the agricultural field and
after loading wheat crops in their tractor, when they reached
near the agricultural land of respondent No.2 Bhajju, at that
time, Bhajju along with his sons Geetesh, Bhanu and
grandson Raju armed with lathi, farsa and iron rod obstructed
their tractor by saying that the said land is belonging to them
and abused them in filthy languages due to previous enmity.
When Pankaj (herein petitioner No.6) when objected to it,
Bhajju inflicted farsa blow on the head and Sonu, son of
Bhajju inflicted sariya blow on the right shoulder of Pankaj.
Geetesh, son of Bhajju inflicted lathi injury to Pankaj and
Raju, grandson of Bhajju inflicted injury on the left shoulder
of Pankaj by means of iron rod. When Kunj Bihari intervened
the matter, Raju inflicted injury on his head by means of iron
rod and Bhanu, son of Bhajju also inflicted injury on his right
shoulder by means of Sariya. Geetesh, son of Bhajju also
inflicted lathi injury on the back of his right leg and Bhajju
also inflicted kick and fist blows to him. On raising hue and
cry, Shyam Naresh Jatav, Kaushal and Sukhe also reached the
spot and all accused persons (herein complainant party)
threatened them not to pass through their land otherwise they
would kill them. On the basis of which, aforesaid cross-FIR
has been registered against the complainant party.
(7) On going through the law laid down by this Court as
well as the Hon'ble Apex Court and on perusal of the
impugned FIR, it is clearly discernible that the incident took
place between the complainant party and accused party due to
previous enmity all of a sudden over the land dispute while
passing through it. It is not disputed that complainant party
are belonging to ''Danuka'' i.e. caste of Scheduled Tribe.
Either assault or threat as alleged in the impugned FIR had
nothing to do with the caste of complainant. Neither it can be
gathered that aforesaid act was committed by petitioners in a
public view in order to humiliating or insulting complainant
on account of complainant's belonging to Caste of Scheduled
Tribe. There is no nexus between utterance of word
''Dhanuka'' and intention or insult or annoy the complainant
merely by complainant's belonging to ST by itself would not
be sufficient to frame charge under the Atrocities Act.
(8) Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
case, this petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed in part.
Except offences under Sections 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC, FIR
registered at Crime No.66/2018, dtd. 25-03-2018 by Police
Station Indargarh, District Datia for offence under Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as well other criminal
proceedings initiated in connection with aforesaid Crime so
far as it relates to present petitioners stands quashed.
(9) Let a copy of this order be sent to concerned Police
Station as well as to the concerning Court for information and
compliance.
(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
Judge
MKB
Digitally signed by MAHENDRA
BARIK
Date: 2022.04.26 18:56:53 +05'30'
