High Court
Legal Reasoning
cran1459.20-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1459 OF 2020 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1775 OF 20241.Kalubai w/o Bhimrao Rathod Age 68 years, Occ. Agri & Household2.Vasant s/o Bhimrao Rathod (named as Ballu in FIR)Age 32 years, Occ. Agril,Both R/o. Kolpimpri, Tq. Dharur District Beed 3.Ashok s/o Bhimrao Rathod Age 38 years, Occ. Service,R/o. Lane No.11, Jai Bhavani NagarCIDCO, Aurangabad ...Applicants versus 1.The State of Maharashtra Through police station,Dharur, district Beed (Copy to be served on P.P.High Court of Bombay,Bench at Aurangabad) 2.Eknath Sadashiv Gaikwad(since deceased, through his son)Devidas Eknath Gaikwad Age 52 years, Occ. LabourR/o. Milind Nagar, AmbejogaiTq. Ambejogai, district Beed ...Respondents …..Mr. S.J. Salunke, advocate for the applicants Mr. N.R. Dayama, A.P.P. for respondent No.1Ms. Sushma T. Jadhav, advocate for respondent No.2. ….. CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:13th MARCH, 2025
Decision
cran1459.20-2- O R D E R (PER SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) :- 1.Heard. 2.For the reasons stated in the criminal application No. 1775of 2024, the same is allowed and disposed of.3.In main criminal application No. 1459 of 2020, leave isgranted to amend the prayer clause.4.The Criminal application No. 1459 of 2020 has been filed,initially for quashing of F.I.R. vide C.R. No. 40 of 2020 registered withDharur police station, district Beed and later on by way ofamendment for quashment of proceedings in Special (Atro. S.C. andS.T.) case No. 44 of 2023, pending before the Special Court at Kaiji.e. District and Additional Sessions Judge at Kaij, District Beed forthe offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. andsections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and ScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, Atrocities Act). 5.The informant Eknath Sadashiv Gaikwad in his reportaverred that he belongs to Scheduled caste (Mahar). In the year1988, he had taken an amount of Rs.10,000/- with interest from one cran1459.20-3- Shrihari Sakhare and in lieu of that, he had mortgaged his agriculturallands, situated at Pangri, bearing block Nos.105 and 107, totallyadmeasuring 3 Acres and 09 Are. After two years, the informant paidan amount of Rs.20,000/- to said Shrihari Sakhare and requested himto give back the said land (redemption of land) to him. The saidShrihari Sakhare entered his name to the record of rights of that land.The informant filed a suit against Shrihari Sakhare in the civil court atKaij. The said suit was decreed in favour of the informant. However,Shrihari Sakhare sold the said land to one Shivaji Sonwane, residentof Undari. Shrihari Sakhre had filed an appeal in the Court atAmbejogai District court. The decision of said appeal was alsorendered in favour of the informant. During pendency of the appeal,Shivaji Sonwane sold that property to one Kalubai Bhimrao Rathod,resident of Kolpimpri Tanda, who is applicant No.1 in this application.6. It is further averred in the report that thereafter, theinformant had filed an appeal in this Court. Even the said appeal wasdecided in favour of the informant. The informant applied to theDeputy Collector, Majalgaon requesting to record his name in therecord of rights. The Deputy Collector, Majalgaon, directed theTahsildar, Dharur to record his name to the record of rights of thesaid properties. In the year 2016, his name was recorded in therecord of rights of the suit property. Thereafter, Kalubai filed appeals cran1459.20-4- in Ambejogai district court and thereafter in the High Court. However,both the proceedings were resulted in favour of the informant.Against that judgment, the appeal was preferred before the Ministerfor Revenue. The said judgment was delivered against the informant.Thereafter, name of applicant No.1 was entered in the record ofrights of the suit property. The informant further averred that since2017 he is in possession of that property. In the year 2020, he hadsown Jawar crop in the suit property. On 01.03.2020 at about 9.00a.m. when the informant alongwith his son went to harvest the Jawarcrop, at that time, applicant No.1 alongwith her two sons i.e. applicantNos. 2 and 3 with their respective wives and other 5-6 unknownpersons were harvesting the Jawar crop. At that time, applicant Nos.2 and 3 Ballu Rathod and Ashok Rathod respectively, told theinformant “;s egkjX;k vkepk lkr ckjk r;kj >kyk vkgs” and a quarrel tookplace there. Son of the informant Devidas was throttled. Thereafter,informant’s three sons and daughters-in-law reached in theagricultural land to harvest the Jawar crop. Thereafter, the informantcame to his village in order to avoid the quarrel and lodged the reporton 02.03.2020 against the applicants. Thus, the aforesaid crime wasregistered.7.The learned advocate for the applicants submitted that theapplicants are falsely implicated in the crime. No such incident took cran1459.20-5- place. Nobody was present at the spot of incident when the allegedincident took place. The applicants have not hurled the abuses. Theapplicants are booked only because of civil litigation in order to takerevenge. Learned advocate for the applicants pointed out thestatements of witnesses from the charge sheet. He also pointed outthe documents of civil litigation between the applicants and theinformant. It is lastly prayed to allow the application. 8.The learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that the quarreltook place on account of harvesting of Jawar crop in the agriculturalland. In that incident, the abuses were hurled by the applicants onthe caste of the informant. The applicants are involved in a seriousand anti-social crime. The informant has no reason to implicate theapplicants in the crime. It is lastly prayed to reject the application. 9.Learned advocate for respondent No.2 strongly opposedthe application and submitted that the applicants are booked in aserious crime. By taking disadvantage of the revenue record againstthe decision of the Civil court, the applicants have beaten theinformant and his family members. They hurled the abuses by sayingthat “;s egkjX;k vkepk lkr ckjk r;kj >kyk vkgs” in the public place i.e.the agricultural land. There are statements of witnesses supportingthe informant, who have heard the abuses and seen that incident. It cran1459.20-6- is lastly prayed to reject the application, as there is sufficient materialagainst the applicants. 10.On perusal of the report and the statements of witnesses, itis crystal clear that nobody was present at the spot when the abuseswere hurled by applicant Nos. 2 and 3 to the informant on the casteby saying “;s egkjX;k vkepk lkr ckjk r;kj >kyk vkgs”. In view of the lawlaid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Hitesh Vermavs State of Uttarakhand and another; (2020) 10 SCC 710, there isnecessity that the abuses on cast must have been heard byindependent witnesses. Paragraph No.14 of the said judgment readsas follows:- “14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult orintimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to beregarded as “place in public view” had come up forconsideration before this Court in the judgment reported asSwaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Ors.(2008) 8 SCC 435. The Court had drawn distinction betweenthe expression “public place” and “in any place within publicview”. It was held that if an offence is committed outside thebuilding e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can beseen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundarywall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the publicview. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building,but some members of the public are there (not merely relativesor friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in thepublic view. cran1459.20-7- 11.Charge sheet shows only relatives were present. Noindependent witness nearby the spot. Though a public road passesthrough adjacent to the field yet where exactly the incident had takenplace in the field has not been stated by any witness, including theinformant. In case abuses in the name of caste, additionalrequirement to be proved by prosecution is that the independentwitness should have heard those alleged abuses or imputations. Inthis case, there is no such evidence even prima facie. 12.We have perused the report and the charge sheet,particularity the statements of witnesses. It appears that thestatements of witnesses are similar to the report in which allegationsare made against the applicants in respect of hurling of abuses onthe caste and throttling to the sons of the informant. 13.Admittedly, the civil litigation is going on between theparties on account of possession and title of the agricultural landsbearing block Nos.105 and 107 situated at village Pangri. There ischequered history of civil litigation and revenue entries in respect ofthe agricultural land. As to who is the owner and in possession of thedisputed properties is a dispute of civil right and it has to be decidedby the civil court. cran1459.20-8- 14.In view of the law laid down in the case of Hitesh Vermavs State of Uttarakhand and another (supra), the essentialingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act are notattracted against the applicants, as the alleged abuses are not heardby any independent witness other than the family members. Further,all of them cannot abuse at the same time. The allegations of abuseson caste are of general and not the specific. There is no injurycertificate to support the alleged beating by the applicants to theinformant, which establishes the offence under section 323 of I.P.C.As far as the offence under Section 504 of I.P.C. is concerned, nocriminal intimidation is given by the informant. If all these factors areconsidered together, it does not establish that the essentialingredients of alleged offences against the applicants are made outfor which the applicants are prosecuted. On such material,compelling the applicants to face the trial would be certainly an abuseof process of the court. We are, therefore, in the interest of justice,inclined to exercise our powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. infavour of the applicants for quashing the report and the charge sheet.The application, therefore, deserves to be allowed. Hence, thefollowing order:-O R D E R I.The application stands allowed. cran1459.20-9- II.The F.I.R. vide C.R. No. 40 of 2020 registered with Dharurpolice station, district Beed and the proceedings in special(Atro. S.C. and S.T.) case No. 44 of 2023 pending before theSpecial Court at Kaij i.e. District and Additional SessionsJudge at Kaij, district Beed for the offences punishable underSections 323, 504 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and sections 3(1)(r) and3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 stands quashed againstthe applicants. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/