High Court
Legal Reasoning
cria-1985.24+1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1985 OF 20241) Nandu S/o Namdeo Lokhande, Age-50 years, Occupation:Service as Primary teacher, R/o-Tisgaon, Taluka-Pathardi, District-Ahmednagar,2) Walmik S/o Rajaram Garudkar, Age-54 years, Occupation:Agri., R/o-As Above. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station - Pathardi, District-Ahmednagar,2) Popat Youvhan Shinde, Age-40 years, Occupation:Agriculture, R/o-Tisgaon, Taluka-Pathardi, District-Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1987 OF 2024Amol S/o Pandurang Bhadake,(As per F.I.R., Amol Bhausaheb Bhadake),Age-35 years, Occupation:Business,R/o-Tisgaon, Taluka-Pathardi,District-Ahmednagar. ...APPLICANT VERSUS cria-1985.24+21) The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station - Pathardi, District-Ahmednagar,2) Popat Youvhan Shinde, Age-40 years, Occupation:Agriculture, R/o-Tisgaon, Taluka-Pathardi, District-Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Hemantkumar F. Pawar Advocate for Applicants in both the Applications. Mr. A.D. Wange, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 in both the Applications. Mr. Umakant U. Wagh Advocate for Respondent No.2 in both the Applications. ... CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 4th JULY, 2025 ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.Both these Applications have been filed, initially forquashing the First Information Report (for short “the FIR”) videCrime No. 79 of 2024, registered with Pathardi Police Station,District-Ahmednagar on 27th January 2024, and later on by wayof amendment, for quashing the proceedings in Special CaseNo.179 of 2024, pending before the learned Special Judge, underthe Atrocities Act, Ahmednagar, for the offence punishable underSections 354-C, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections
Legal Reasoning
cria-1985.24+33(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and theScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.2.Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pawar appearing for theapplicants, learned APP Mr. Wange for respondent No.1 andlearned Advocate Mr. Wagh for respondent No.2, in both theApplications. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the applicants has takenus through the entire charge-sheet and he submits that perusalof the FIR will not attract the offences under Sections 3(1)(r)and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Sections under the IndianPenal Code are non-cognizable. It is the contention of theinformant that on 27th January 2024, around 6.00 a.m., hismother had gone behind his house for answering the nature’scall. The informant noticed that the applicants were makingshooting with drone camera of the ladies who used to go foranswering nature’s call in the open space and therefore, heobjected to the same and at that time all the three accusedpersons started abusing him in the name of caste and gavethreat to kill him if he intervenes. The informant says that afterhe raised voice, certain other persons came there. By that time cria-1985.24+4the ladies who had gone for answering nature’s call, came backand then the accused persons went away. If we consider thestatements of the ladies who had allegedly gone for answeringthe nature’s call, they have stated that they saw the dronecamera due to which they became ashamed and therefore, theycame back. They were not present when the alleged abuseswere given in the name of caste. The statements of thosepersons who had gathered at the spot after the informant raisedvoice, would show that they had seen the drone camera and alsopeople who had gathered in front of the shop of Wahab IliyasPathan and they made inquiry. But their statements are hear-say. Therefore, no independent witness was present when thealleged abuses were given in the name of caste. Under suchcircumstances, it appears that the FIR has been lodged withmala fide intention. 4.Learned Advocate appearing for the applicants submittedthat original accused No.3 – Walmik Rajaram Garudkar had filedPublic Interest Litigation No.4 of 2022 before this Court forremoval of encroachment in Gat No.296 situated at villageTisgaon. In fact the informant and the witnesses now quoted,had made encroachment in the said Gat number. This Court byorder dated 17th August 2023, directed the Block Development cria-1985.24+5Officer and Chief Executive Officer to initiate inquiry in respect ofGat No.296 within a period of 120 days and to initiate actionagainst the concerned persons. In view of the said order, theinquiry officer had issued notices to the encroachers to removetheir encroachment within the stipulated period. Those noticeswere also received by the informant and the witnesses. Theinformant and the witnesses have approached this Court by filingseparate petitions challenging the notices. Again this Court haddirected the authority to make inquiry and initiate steps forremoval of the encroachments, per the procedure of law. Thus, itcan be seen that the FIR is in retaliation and to avoid theremoval of encroachment. 5.Learned Advocate for the applicants relies on the decisionin Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others,(2008) 12 SCC 531, wherein it has been observed that theinformant ought to have alleged that the accused persons werenot the members of the scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe andhe was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused withan intention to humiliate in a place within public view. It issubmitted that no such averments are there in the present caseand therefore, it would be an abuse of process of law to ask theapplicants to face the trial, when in fact the charge-sheet cria-1985.24+6appears to have been filed for the offence punishable underSections 354-C, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and theScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.6.Per contra, the learned APP as well as learned Advocate forrespondent No.2 strongly opposed the Applications andsubmitted that though initially the FIR was only under Sections504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, taking into consideration the statements of theladies, Section 354-C of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, came to be added. In fact such anact of making shooting/videography of the ladies who had gonefor answering the nature’s call in the open area, certainlyamounts to outraging their modesty. A memory card has beenseized in the matter which was produced by accused – KrushnaNandu Lawande. Under such circumstances, it is now required tobe seen by the trial Court, as to what is there in that memorycard. Each and every witness is saying that they had seen thedrone in that area and the informant says that he had seen that cria-1985.24+7the control of the drone was with the accused persons.Therefore, certainly the offences are made out. 7.At the outset, we would like to deal with the law point thathas been raised that the caste of the accused is not mentioned inthe FIR and the reliance has been placed on Gorige Pentaiah vs.State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (supra). We would like torely on Three Judge Bench decision of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale vs. State of Maharashtraand others, 2009(3) SCC 789, wherein it has been held that theFIR is not an encyclopedia. The view taken by the High Court isnot correct. Rules are framed under the Act and Rule 7 dealswith investigation has to be done by the officer now below therank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Ascertainment of factcan be made by the investigating officer during investigation inrespect of the caste of accused. After final opinion is formed, it isopen to the Court to either accept the same or take cognizance.Even if the charge sheet is filed at the time of consideration ofthe charge, it is open to the accused to bring to the notice of theCourt that the materials do not show that the accused does notbelong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Even if charge isframed at the time of trial materials can be placed to show thatthe accused either belongs or does not belong to scheduled caste cria-1985.24+8or scheduled tribe. Here, in the present case, from the charge-sheet we could find that statement has been made by theinvestigating officer that the accused persons are Hindu Mali andHindu Maratha, especially the communication dated 27th January2024, by the investigating officer would show that three accusedpersons are Mali by caste and one accused is Hindu Maratha.Therefore, there is evidence to the effect that the accused arenot the members of either scheduled caste or scheduled tribe.Therefore, in view of the decision by the Larger Bench, we are ofthe opinion that the trial before the Special Court is justified.8.Now, coming towards the facts of the case, though whenthe FIR was lodged, it was under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) ofthe Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, but later on taking into consideration thestatements of the ladies, Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the ScheduledCastes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,has been added. Section 354-C of the Indian Penal Code has alsobeen added. The facts are clear that when the ladies had gonefor answering nature’s call, it is alleged that the presentapplicants have managed to get done the video recording of thesame by a drone camera. Almost all the witnesses have statedthat they have seen the drone camera in the sky around 6.00 cria-1985.24+9a.m., on 27th January 2024. Statements of those ladies,specifically who had gone for the nature’s call, have also beenrecorded and therefore, even if we consider that the accusedpersons might not be knowing as to which lady had gone foranswering nature’s call and her caste, yet the fact then would becovered under Section 354-C of the Indian Penal Code. At thisstage when this fact is coming on record that there was a videoshooting with the help of drone camera, it shows the mentalsickness of the persons doing such activities. Even if for the sakeof arguments it is accepted that one of the accused had filed thePublic Interest Litigation for removal of encroachment in thevillage, yet the order that was passed by this Court and the lawwould have taken its recourse. Such act of making videorecording of the ladies when they had gone for answering thenature’s call, cannot be justified for anything and it cannot besaid to be the allegation in retaliation. Certainly, trial is requiredwhen the entire investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed.This is not a fit case where the powers can be exercised inrespect of quashing the FIR for the offence punishable underSection 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and the ScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Sections 354-C, 504,506 of the Indian Penal Code. cria-1985.24+109.However, at the same time it is to be noted that foringredients of offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of theScheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, there has to be an independent witness whowould have heard the abuses those have been given in the nameof the caste for insulting the member of the scheduled caste orscheduled tribe and that is the requirement as held in HiteshVerma vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, 2021 CRI. L.J. 1.We are of the opinion that to the extent of offence punishableunder Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and theScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, case is made outfor quashment of the FIR and the proceedings in the SpecialCase and therefore, we proceed to pass the following order:- O R D E R(I)Both the Applications stand partly allowed.(II) The proceedings in Special Case No.179 of2024, pending before the learned Special Judge,under the Atrocities Act, Ahmednagar, arising outof the First Information Report vide Crime No. 79of 2024, registered with Pathardi Police Station,District-Ahmednagar on 27th January 2024, stands cria-1985.24+11quashed and set aside, to the extent of offencepunishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of theScheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as against theapplicants i.e. - 1) Nandu S/o Namdeo Lokhande,2) Walmik S/o Rajaram Garudkar in CriminalApplication No.1985 of 2024, and applicant - AmolS/o Pandurang Bhadake in Criminal ApplicationNo.1987 of 2024.(III)Matter to proceed for rest of the chargesagainst the applicants in both the Applications, i.e.for the offence punishable under Sections 354-C,504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section -3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and theScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE asb/JULY25