High Court

Legal Reasoning

12204.2024APPLN.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2204 OF 2024 1.Vishwanath Raghunath DubukwadAge : 46 years, Occ : Fishing, R/o Handarguli, Tq. Udgir, District. Latur. 2.Pappu @ Ramakant Vishwanath AmrutwadAge : 24 years, Occ : Fishing, R/o Wadhavana (Bk.), Tq. Udgir, District Latur. 3.Balaji Raghunath DubukwadAge : 40 years, Occ : Fishing, R/o Wadhavana (Bk), Tq. Udgir, District Latur. 4.Shrikant Babu ChandanwadAge : 45 years, Occ : Fishing, R/o Wadhavana (Bk), Tq. Udgir, District Latur. ..APPLICANTS-VERSUS-1.Vidyasagar Raghunath SomwanshiAge : 40 years, Occ : Nil, R/o Wadhavana (Bk), Tq. Udgir, District Latur. 2.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Inspector, Wadhavana Police Station, Latur, District Latur. ..RESPONDENTS...Advocate for Applicants : Mr. L.V. Sangit APP for Respondent- State : Mr. A.R. Kale Advocates for respondent no.1 : Mr.Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar andMr.S.P. Mahale ... 22204.2024APPLN.odtCORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ANDR.W.JOSHI, JJ.DATED : 24th MARCH, 2025.JUDGMENT (PER R.W. JOSHI, J.) : .Present application is filed under Section 482 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, inter alia, seeking quashment of F.I.R.No.56/2022 registered with Wadhavana Police Station, Tq. Udgir,Dist. Latur for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and underSections 3(1)(r), (s) and 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered on09.04.2022 along with Charge-Sheet No. 79/2020 dated 17.08.2022and Special Case No.34/2022 registered pursuant to the same, which ispending on the file of the learned Special Judge under the SC & ST Actat Udgir, Dist. Latur. 2.Respondent No.2 – Informant has lodged the F.I.R. on09.04.2022 stating that he was working as watchman at Tiru Lake. Hehas stated that on 29.03.2022, he had reported on duty in a tin shedlocated near the agricultural land of one Apparao Patil in villageWadhvana (kh), where his co-employee Fayyum Ismil Shaikh informed 32204.2024APPLN.odthim that a small boat of the society with whom respondent no.2 wasemployed was stolen, and therefore, the said Fayyum and respondentno.2 started searching for the said boat in an around the areasurrounding the Lake. It is alleged that on 27.03.2022 at about 2:00p.m., when they had reached the portion of Lake in village HandarguliShivar, they found that the applicants had laid a fishing net in the Lakefor catching fish. He states that he and Fayyum asked the applicants asto how they were carrying out fishing operation in the Lake and didthey obtain any permission from the society for carrying out fishing.Respondent No.2 alleges that applicant no.1 got unnecessarily agitatedand raised quarrel with respondent no.2 and Fayyum stating thatnobody could stop them from carrying out fishing operation in the Lakeand that respondent no.2 and said Fayyum or any other person was freeto do whatever they wanted to do. He alleges that applicant nos.2 to 4came near him and said Fayyum and stated that they were taking fishwith them. He alleges that when he tried to stop the applicants fromtaking the fish, applicant no.2 abused him in the name of his caste andthreatened him not to touch the bag containing fish. He alleges thatapplicant nos.2 to 4 started beating him with fist and kick blows. Withsuch allegations respondent no.2 lodged complaint with respect to theincident that had occurred on 29.03.2022 on 09.04.2022 withrespondent no.1 – Police Station. Respondent No.1 has completed the 42204.2024APPLN.odtinvestigation and has filed charge-sheet in the matter. On the basis ofthe charge-sheet filed, criminal case is registered against the applicants,which is now pending for adjudication before the learned Special Courtunder the SC & ST Act.3.We have heard Mr.S.V. Sangit, learned advocate for theapplicants, Mr.Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, learned advocate forrespondent no.1, Mr.A.R. Kale, learned APP for respondent no.2 andhave perused the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet with their able assistance.4.It is apparent from reading of the F.I.R. and the documentsin the charge-sheet, particularly the statements of the witnesses, that adispute had ensued between respondent no.2 and applicants in relationto fishing rights in the Lake. Respondent No.2 was allegedly abused andbeaten up due to the said dispute. The act of hurling abuses or causinghurt is not due to the reason that the applicants belongs to scheduledcaste. In this regard, it will be appropriate to refer to judgment of theHon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Khuman Singh Vs. State of M.P.reported in (2020) 18 SCC 763. In the said matter, a sudden quarrelhad arisen between the deceased, who was belonging to scheduledcaste and the accused in relation to grazing of buffaloes. The allegationwas that the deceased was attacked by means of axe and was also 52204.2024APPLN.odtabused in the name of his caste. Offence under section 3(2)(v) wasregistered against the accused apart from the offence under Section 302of the IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held with respect to offenceunder Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, that the evidence on record did notindicate that the offence was committed against the deceased, whobelonged to scheduled caste only on the ground that he was belongingto such category. Relying upon the earlier judgment in the matter ofDinesh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2006) 3 SCC 771, theHon’ble Supreme Court has held that offence under Section 3(2)(v) canbe said to be committed when general offence referred in the saidprovision is committed only because the person belongs to scheduledcaste. Having held that the deceased was not attacked and murderedonly because he belongs to scheduled caste, conviction under Section3(2)(v) was set aside.5.Although, the present case is for quashing of F.I.R. and notan appeal after trial, perusal of the F.I.R. and all the statements willindicate that it is not even alleged that respondent no.2 was beaten upbecause he belongs to scheduled caste. The allegation is that there wasquarrel between the parties in relations to fishing rights, and therefore,respondent no.2 was beaten up by applicant nos.2 to 4. Only becauserespondent no.2, who was beaten up in relation to fishing rights, 62204.2024APPLN.odtbelongs to scheduled caste category, offence under Section 3(2)(v)cannot be registered against applicant nos.2 to 4. 6.Offence under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) is made out when aperson not belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe categoryintentionally insults or intimidates a member of scheduled caste orscheduled tribe in any place within public view with an intent tohumiliate him or abuse such person by the name of his caste in anyplace within public view. The essential ingredients of these twoprovisions is an intention to humiliate or abuse a person, who is amember of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in the name of his casteor with a view to humiliate him in public view. As stated above, quarrelbetween applicants on one side and respondent no.2 and his co-workerhad ensued on account of fishing rights. The quarrel was not due tocaste background of the parties. In this regard, it will be profitable torefer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter ofHitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another reported in (2020)10 SCC 710, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that all theacts of insult or humiliation to a person who belongs to a scheduledcaste or scheduled tribe will not be an offence under the Act. In orderto constitute the offence under the Act, the insult or humiliation shouldonly be on account of the person belonging to scheduled caste or 72204.2024APPLN.odtscheduled tribe. The assertion of right over property by a person notbelonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe resulting in a quarrel inwhich the person belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe isabused in the name of caste or insulted or intimidated will notconstitute an offence under the said provisions. 7.The other provisions under which offence is registered arenon-cognizable sections of the IPC for which F.I.R. cannot be lodged. Inthat view of the matter, since ingredients of offence under Section3(1)(r), (s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act are not made out, the F.I.R. is liableto be quashed. The continuation of the prosecution against theapplicants would be abuse of process of law. We are, therefore, of theview that the application deserves to be allowed. Hence, we pass thefollowing order ORDER(i)The application is allowed.(ii)F.I.R. No.56/2022 registered with Wadhavana PoliceStation, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur for the offence punishable under Sections323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code andSections 3(1)(r), (s) and 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered on09.04.2022 along with Charge-Sheet No. 79/2020 dated 17.08.2022 82204.2024APPLN.odtand Special Case No.34/2022 pending on the file of the learned SpecialJudge under the SC & ST Act at Udgir, Dist. Latur against the applicantno.1-Vishwanath Raghunath Dubukwad, applicant no.2 - Pappu @Ramakant Vishwanath Amrutwad, applicant no.3 - Balaji RaghunathDubukwad and applicant no.4 - Shrikant Babu Chandanwad, arehereby quashed. [R.W. JOSHI][ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGEJUDGEsga