High Court

Legal Reasoning

cran2228.24-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD18 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2228 OF 20241.Babalu @ Siddharth HanmantDeshmukh2.Pappu @ Akash Jadhav...ApplicantsVersus 1.The State of Maharashtra2.Sanket Umakant Magar ...Respondents...Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Shomitkumar V. Salunke h/f Mr.Y.L. Bidve APP for Respondent No.1: Mr. A.R. Kale Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Shankar Kendre(appointed) ….. CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:12th MARCH, 2025 PER COURT :- 1.The present application has been filed initially for quashingof F.I.R. vide C.R. No. 192 of 2024 registered with M.I.D.C. policestation, Tq. and district Latur and later on by way of amendment forquashment of proceedings in special case No. 60 of 2024, pendingbefore the learned Special Judge under the Atrocities Act/AdditionalSessions Judge-2, Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections323, 324, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and section 3(1) (r) and 3(1)(s) of cran2228.24-2- the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989. 2.Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned A.P.P.as well as learned advocate for respondent No.2, who has beenappointed by us for representing the cause of respondent No.2, sincerespondent No.2 failed to appear inspite of service of notice. All ofthem have taken us through the contents of the F.I.R. and the chargesheet. 3.The first and foremost point that has been submitted onbehalf of the applicants is that the contents of F.I.R. and the chargesheet do not show that the incident was within the public view, asappear from the informant’s witnesses, who have been examined andthey are his relatives. We do not appreciate said submission in viewof the fact that the incident is stated to have been taken in Yatra i.e.fair organized at Chandpeer Baba, Khadgaon. Certainly, the fair is apublic place and it should be within the public view. 4.The second point that was tried to be submitted is thepolitical rivalry which also we are not approving for the sake of lack ofdetails and the fact that the informant was aged 17 years 10 monthsat the time of lodging the F.I.R. and was not even competent to take cran2228.24-3- part in any political activity. 5.The third point that has been submitted is that the contentsof the F.I.R. as well as the statements of witnesses under Sections161 as well as 164 of Cr.P.C. would show that both the applicantshad abused in the name of the caste to the informant in chorus. Theabuses cannot be in chorus and when other four witnesses werecousin brothers of the informant how no injury was caused to them. 6.Learned A.P.P. as well as learned advocate appointed forrespondent No.2 objected to these points and submit that it would bea matter of evidence as to who has exactly abused. But certainly theincident had taken place in view of the fact that immediately theinformant has been medically examined and there is injury certificate.Four witnesses are supported him, who are eye witnesses. Asregards this point, certainly abuses cannot be in chores and exactlyin the same language or words at the same time. 7.Perusal of the F.I.R. and the statements of the witnesseswould show that the other four witnesses are relatives of theinformant i.e. his cousin brothers. The investigating officer has notrecorded statement of any third person i.e. independent person. Inview of paragraph No.14 from Hitesh Verma vs State of cran2228.24-4- Uttarakhand and another; (2020) 10 SCC 710, which we reproducehere as follows, there is necessity that those abuses ought to havebeen heard by independent witnesses:- “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. The Court held as under: “28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, thefirst informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (bycalling him a “chamar”) when he stood near the carwhich was parked at the gate of the premises. In ouropinion, this was certainly a place within public view,since the gate of a house is certainly a place withinpublic view. It could have been a different matter hadthe alleged offence been committed inside a building,and also was not in the public view. However, if theoffence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawnoutside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someonefrom the road or lane outside the boundary wall, thelawn would certainly be a place within the public view. cran2228.24-5- Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, butsome members of the public are there (not merelyrelatives or friends) then also it would be an offencesince it is in the public view. We must, therefore, notconfuse the expression “place within public view” withthe expression “public place”. A place can be a privateplace but yet within the public view. On the other hand,a public place would ordinarily mean a place which isowned or leased by the Government or the municipality(or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentalityof the State, and not by private persons or privatebodies.”” 8.It is stated that the incident had taken place in a fair, thattoo at 9.30 p.m. then certainly it would have been heard and seen byindependent witnesses also. It is stated in the F.I.R. as well asstatements that incident had happened near a joint wheel ticketcounter. If that is so, then they ought to have been enquired with theperson who was on ticket counter or other persons who were in thequeue for taking tickets. Therefore, the said ingredient is not fulfilledas per requirement in Hitesh Verma vs State of Uttarakhand andanother (supra); to attract the offences under sections 3(1)(r) and3(1)(s) of Atrocities Act. 9.Now as regards the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. isconcerned, the informant says that he was assaulted by bracelet(kada). The witnesses are also saying the same thing. That Kada cran2228.24-6- has not been seized in the matter which is stated to be used asweapon. Even if it has taken as it is, it cannot be taken as instrumentof shooting, cutting, stabbing etc. which is the basic requirement ofSection 324 of I.P.C. Though the injury certificate states that theinformant had sustained two injuries, which were simple in nature andprobable weapon that was used is hard and blunt object, yet for theaforesaid reason that Kada is not an instrument of shooting, cutting,stabbing etc. or any other instrument, which is used as weapon ofoffence, likely to cause death, or by means of fire etc. The basicingredients of Section 324 of I.P.C. are also then not attracted. Thenwhatever the offences remain are non cognizable offence andtherefore, the F.I.R. under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. would not havebeen maintainable. Under these circumstances, it would be anabuse of process of law if the applicants are asked to face the trial.This is a fit case where we should exercise our powers under Section482 of Cr.P.C. as the case is befitting the guidelines in HiteshVerma vs State of Uttarakhand and another (supra). We therefore,proceed to pass the following order:- O R D E RI.The application stands allowed. II.The proceedings in special case No. 60 of 2024 pending cran2228.24-7- before the learned Special Judge under the AtrocitiesAct/Additional Sessions Judge-2, Latur arising out of the F.I.R.vide C.R. No. 192 of 2024 registered with M.I.D.C. policestation, Latur, Tq. and district Latur for the offences punishableunder Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and section3(1) (r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and ScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, stands quashedand set aside against both the applicants. 10.The fees of learned advocate appointed to represent thecause of respondent No.2 is quantified at Rs.7000/- (Rupees Seventhousand) to be paid by the High Court Legal Services SubCommittee, Aurangabad. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/