High Court

Legal Reasoning

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1856 OF 20231Shudhodhan Pralhadrao Hanmante,Age 23 yrs., Occ. Education,R/o At Ancholi, Post Kolambi,Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded. 2Sahebrao Maroti Kamble,Age 20 yrs., Occ. Education,R/o At Post Raher, Tq. Naigaon,Dist. Nanded. … Applicants… Versus …1The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Station, Naigaon,Tq. Naikgaon, Dist. Nanded. 2Vyankati Ananda More,Age 70 yrs., Occ. Agri.,R/o At Ancholi, Post Kolambi,Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded. … Respondents...Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for applicantsMr. S.A. Gaikwad, APP for respondent No.1Mr. S.B. Ghatol Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.RESERVED ON :09th JULY, 2025PRONOUNCED ON :28th JULY, 2025 2Cri.Appln_1856_2023ORDER : ( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )1 Present application has been filed under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 initially for quashment of First InformationReport vide Crime No.101/2022 dated 29.06.2022 registered with PoliceStation, Naigaon, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded, for the offence punishableunder Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode, 1860 and later on by way of amendment for quashing the proceedingsin Regular Criminal Case No.1/2023 pending before learned JudicialMagistrate First Class, Naigaon. 2Heard learned Advocate Mr. V.B. Patil for applicants, learned APPMr. S.A. Gaikwad for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. S.B. GhatolPatil for respondent No.2. 3Learned Advocate for applicants has taken us through FirstInformation Report and entire charge sheet and he submits that respondentNo.2 has alleged that incident had taken place in front of his house around12.00 p.m. on 15.06.2022, however, he has lodged First Information Reporton 29.06.2022 and the delay has not been explained at all. In fact, applicantNo.1 had lodged First Information Report on 17.06.2022 vide Crime 3Cri.Appln_1856_2023No.96/2022 with the same Police Station for the offence punishable underSections 452, 324, 323, 354, 354-D, 143, 147, 504, 506 of the Indian PenalCode, 1860 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii),3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as “theAtrocities Act”). Certainly, to defeat the rights of present applicant No.1 abelated First Information Report has been lodged. Applicant Nos.1 and 2 arethe members of Scheduled Castes. Informant had abused in the name ofcaste and family members of informant by forming unlawful assembly hadassaulted and caused injuries to sister and mother of applicant No.1. Injuriesare caused with the help of stick and axe. Under the said circumstance, itwould be an abuse of process of law if the applicants are asked to face thetrial. 4Per contra, learned APP for respondent No.1 strongly opposedthe application and submitted that there appears to be the cross cases and,therefore, the presence of other side is admitted by applicants. If we considerFirst Information Report lodged by applicant No.1 and First InformationReport in the present matter, the time and place of incident appears to be thesame and, therefore, this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise itspowers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned APP 4Cri.Appln_1856_2023rather submitted that prior to the amendment to the Scheduled Castes andthe Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act the legal position wasdifferent. Section 14 and Section 2(1)(d) of the Atrocities Act i.e. prior to theamendment the Special Court was held to be a Court of Session and,therefore, it could not have taken cognizance directly as a Court of originaljurisdiction without the case being committed to it by a Magistrate in view ofSection 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Gangula Ashok andanother vs. State of A.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 504] this view was taken. However,later on with the amendment in the Act itself Section 14 provides for takingcognizance for the offence directly by the Special Court and, therefore, now,the charge sheets are presented before the Special Courts and Special Courttakes cognizance. However, when it comes to the cross case, it is the cardinalprinciple that both the cases should be tried by the same Judge and,therefore, Regular Criminal Case No.1/2023 deserves to be transferred to theSpecial Court where the Special case on the basis of First Information ReportNo.96/2022 filed by present applicant No.1 is pending. He relies on thedecision in Faizal and another vs. State of Kerala [(2024) 2 KLT 852],wherein under similar circumstances by taking recourse to Section 323 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, which empowers Magistrate for the committal ofthe case, the case was transferred to Special Court for the Atrocities Act. 5Cri.Appln_1856_20235Here, it is to be noted from impugned First Information Report inpresent matter i.e. Crime No.101/2022 and First Information Report videCrime No.96/2022 that both are in respect of the incident that had takenplace at 12.00 p.m. on 15.06.2022 in village Ancholi, Tq. Naigaon, Dist.Nanded. The place also appears to be the same. That means, those are thecross cases. In respect of the informant in both matters the presence isadmitted. In the charge sheet in question there are eye witnesses, who havestated that applicant No.1 with the help of handle of axe had assaulted andcaused injury to Shivshankar, who is the grandson of respondent No.2. TheMedico Legal Certificate shows that he has sustained Contused LaceratedWound on left occipital region and contusion and it appears that he was thenreferred to hospital at Nanded. Both were simple injuries. The case record ofDr. Shankarrao Chavan Government Medical College and Hospital,Vishnupuri, Nanded would show that further treatment was given toShivshankar. One Krishna Ananda More has also suffered injuries, thosewere simple, however, it was with axe which is the instrument of cutting.Prima facie Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code gets attracted, which iscognizable offence. Therefore, there is no question of exercise of powers forquashing the proceedings. The delay can be explained and that cannot bethe sole ground on which First Information Report and the proceedings canbe quashed and set aside. In fact, there is delay in lodging the report for 6Cri.Appln_1856_2023applicant No.1 also, because the incident had taken place at 12.00 p.m. on15.06.2022, whereas he has lodged the report around 19.46 hours on17.06.2022. 6We agree to the submissions on behalf of learned APP that boththe cases are required to be tried together i.e. by the same Judge in order toavoid the complications and also it should be seen in cross complaints as towhich party is the aggressor. Such course of action has to be taken underSection 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and for this purpose we wouldrely on the decision in Anil Bhaskar Sonavane vs. The State of Maharashtra[(1976) 78 Bombay LR 325, Nathi Lal vs. State of U.P. [1990 SCC (Cri.) 638]and State of M.P. vs. Mishrilal (dead) and others [AIR 2003 SC 4089]. TheHon’ble Kerala High Court had relied on Nathi Lal (supra) and also statedthat in Sudhir and others vs. State of M.P. [(2001) 2 SCC 688] the saidprinciples were reiterated. The question was, as to whether the Magistratecan adopt the procedure under Section 323 of the Code of CriminalProcedure in present case where the cross case is under the Atrocities Act ofwhich cognizance has been taken by the Special Court. Section 323 of theCode of Criminal Procedure states that if the Magistrate feels that the case isone which ought to be tried by Court of Session, then he can commit underthe said provision. Now, here, we are distinguishing the Special Court from 7Cri.Appln_1856_2023the Court of Session. But, then it can be stated that the procedure cannot behurdle in dispensation of justice, wherein it is required that these two casesshould be tried by one Judge. Certain provisions of the Code of CriminalProcedure are made specifically applicable to the Atrocities Act, however, atthe same time the Atrocities Act is a Code in itself. Section 20 of theAtrocities Act makes provision for act to override other laws which states that-“Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act shallhave effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewithcontained in any other law for the time being in force or any customor usage or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.”The provision of Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedurecannot be said to be inconsistent, rather it is helpful even to the Special Courtto come to just conclusion in the matter. 7Therefore, we direct learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Naigaon to commit Regular Criminal Case No.1/2023 to the Special Courtbefore whom the Special Case is pending arising out of First InformationReport No.96/2022. Such order be passed within a period of one month andfor that purpose the applicants are directed to remain present before learned 8Cri.Appln_1856_2023Magistrate on 04.08.2025. 8With the above observations, Criminal Application standsrejected. 9Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order. ( SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) agd