Chandrakant Nanasaheb Kadam v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Revision Application is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. A Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Pushpa Vijay Bonde Vs. State of Maharashtra [2009 (3) Mh. L.J. 489], again endorsed that it is not a requirement u/s 3 of the Act that the Complainant should disclose the caste of the…
Judgment
Mr. Sachin Thorat, for Applicant. Mrs. P.P. Bhosale, A.P.P. for State. Mr. Abhijeet Kadam, for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. ---- CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : OCTOBER 30, 2012. P.C.:
Heard. Discharge of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 by the learned District Judge-13 and Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune by order dated 11.2.2009 for an offence punishable u/s 3(i)(x) of Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is questioned by the Complainant- Chanrakant. 2 revn.539-2010.sxw
The learned Judge basically discharged the Respondents on the ground- the Caste of the accused-respondents is not mentioned.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits, the FIR does not disclose the caste of the Petitioner-Chandrakant and hence discharge was reasonable.
The FIR cannot be a thesis of all the events. It is during the investigation, the Investigator is expected to collect the material. That apart, the FIR in the instant case discloses in unmistakable terms furnishing caste certificate of the Petitioner-Chandrakant. Even if the FIR does not disclose about the specific reference, the caste certificate being tendered, it meets out requirement in terms of infraction of the provision under the above referred Act. Discharge by the learned Judge, calls for interference as the orders recorded in the matter of Manohar s/o Martandrao Kulkarni Vs. State of Maharashtra and bunch of identically placed petitions [2005 (4) Mh. L.J. 588] is overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashabai Machindra Adhagale Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2009) 3 SCC 789]. The legal position is enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 3 revn.539-2010.sxw in para-10,12 and 14 of the said judgment.
The powers u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. were also indicated by reference to the judgment in the matter of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866].
Operative part
A Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Pushpa Vijay Bonde Vs. State of Maharashtra [2009 (3) Mh. L.J. 489], again endorsed that it is not a requirement u/s 3 of the Act that the Complainant should disclose the caste of the accused in the Complaint. That cannot be a ground for either not registering the offence u/s 3 or quashing such Complaint. Discharge by the learned Additional Sessions Judge calls for interference. It is set aside. Cri. Revision Application is allowed.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Revision Application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 30 Oct 2012. The bench was K U CHANDIWAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.