Criminal Application No. 1693 of 2021 · Bombay High Court
Case Details
2024:BHC-AUG:2712-DB 996.Crl.APPLN.2299.21.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1693 OF 2021 1) Maroti s/o Bhagwan Madke, 2) Chandrakant s/o Maroti Barade, 3) Omprakash s/o Bhagwanrao Madke, 4) Khakisab s/o Omprakash Madke, 5) Balasaheb s/o Maroti Shindge, 6) Maroti s/o Sambhaji Shindge, 7) Balaji s/o Sakharam Shindge, 8) Dnyaneshwar s/o Balaji Shindge, 9) Sangameshwar s/o Balaji Shindge, 10) Vaishali w/o Balasaheb Shindge, 11) Surekha w/o Balaji Shindge, 12) Kishan s/o Sambhaji Shindge, 13) Babu s/o Kishan Shindge, 14) Sulochana w/o Babu Shindge, 15) Satish s/o Bapurao Barade, 16) Sumit s/o Satish Barade, 17) Kiran s/o Sambhaji Barade, 18) Vishwanath s/o Baburao Barade, 19) Vaijnath s/o Baburao Barade, 20) Kusumbai w/o Baburao Barade, 21) Sonali d/o Vishwanath Barade, 22) Sudhakar s/o Ganpati Barade, 23) Savita w/o Sudhakar Barade, 24) Ganesh s/o Sudhakar Barade, 25) Maroti s/o Manikarao Barade, 26) Shivraj s/o Kamaji Barade, 27) Vaishali w/o Shivraj Barade, 28) Shivkumar s/o Sadashiv Barade, 29) Madhav s/o Ganpati Hatte, 30) Devidas s/o Madhav Hatte, 31) Chautharabai w/o Madhav Hatte, 32 ) Maroti s/o Ramrao Hatte, 33) Hanmant s/o Vithal Hatte, 34) Prakash s/o Balaji Hatte, 35) Sham s/o Balaji Hatte, 36) Baburao Sambhaji Tagampure, 37) Sulubai w/o Baburao Tagampure, 38) Gajanan s/o Baburao Tagampure, 39) Raju s/o Baburao Tagampure, 1/7 996.Crl.APPLN.2299.21.odt 40) Sachin s/o Ashok Tagampure, 41) Madhav s/o Shivaradas Tagampure, 42) Balaji s/o Ramrao Deshmukh, 43) Ramrao Balaji Deshmukh, 44) Priyanka w/o Ramrao Deshmukh, 45) Chandrakant s/o Balaji Madke, 46) Kalavati w/o Balaji Madke, 47) Shivkumar s/o Balaji Madke, 48) Shivaji s/o Bhagwan Madke, 49) Asha w/o Shivaji Madke, 50) Kapil s/o Shivaji Madke, 51) Sunandabai w/o Omprakash Madke, 52) Mahananda w/o Maroti Madke. 53) Swapnil s/o Maroti Madke, 54) Sachin s/o Maroti Madke, 55) Ashok s/o Govind Madke, 56) Dnyaneshwar s/o Atam Madke, 57) Tarabai w/o Atam Madke, 58) Subhash s/o Raghunath Madke, 59) Basweshwar s/o Raghunath Madke, 60) Nagnath s/o Pandurang Madke, 61) Shivaji s/o Pandurang Madke, 62) Sanjay s/o Havgirao Barade, 63) Rahul s/o Sanjay Barade, 64) Anjanbai w/o Sanjay Barade, 65) Manjusha w/o Satish Barade, 66) Ashok s/o Sambhaji Tagampure, 67) Sambhaji s/o Ganpati Barade VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra Through the Station House Officer, Police Station, Osman Nagar. Taluka Kandhar, District Nanded. … APPLICANTS 2) Satish s/o Baliram Dikle, … RESPONDENTS ...
Legal Reasoning
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Shamsundar B. Patil Addl.P.P. for respondent/State : Mr. M.M. Nerlikar Advocate for respondent No.2 : Mr. S.V. Gundre … 2/7 996.Crl.APPLN.2299.21.odt WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2299 OF 2021 1. Sambhaji s/o Balaji Dikle, 2. Satish s/o Baliram Dikle, 3. Raju s/o Venkati Dikle, 4. Sonba s/o Shivaji Malegave, 5. Nandkumar s/o Venkati Dikle, 6. Sandhya w/o Subhash Aglave, 7. Ashwini w/o Raju Aglave, 8. Ramdas s/o Govind Aglave, 9. Laxman s/o Ishwar Jakapure, 10. Meerabai w/o Chandrakant Jakapure, 11. Sunita w/o Ramdas Aglave, 12. Chandrakala w/o Maroti Aglave, 13. Vitthal s/o Gangadhar Aglave, 14. Laxmibai w/o Venkati Dikle 15. Vandanabai w/o Govind Malegave 16. Dhurpatabai w/o Gajanan Jakapure 17. Prabhakar s/o Deorao Malegave, 18. Shankar s/o Bapurao Aglave 19. Sanjay s/o Sahebrao Dikle, 20. Vishal s/o Balaji Deshmukh 21. Sahebrao s/o Laxman Jakapure 22. Baburao s/o Bapurao Aglave, 23. Mohan s/o Nilkanth Malegave, 24. Ananda s/o Jagdevrao Dikle, 25. Govind s/o Yeshwanta Malegave, 26. Bhaskar s/o Devrao Malegave, 27. Avinash s/o Maroti Malegave, 28. Subhash s/o Digambar Aglave, 29. Gajanan s/o Vishwambhar Malegave, 30. Sudhakar s/o Waghji Malegave, 31. Shivdas s/o Madhavrao Deshmukh, 32. Ramkishan s/o Venkati Malegave, 33. Ramesh s/o Sambhaji Malegave, 34. Keshav s/o Vishwambhar Shirse, 35. Ishwar s/o Madhav Dikle, 36. Maroti s/o Madhav Malegave, 37. Sandip s/o Vishwambhar Dikle, 38. Balaji s/o Devidas Deshmukh, 39. Mohan s/o Shivdas Deshmukh, 40. Umakant s/o Satish Dikle, 41. Rajabai w/o Sambhaji Dikle, … APPLICANTS 3/7 996.Crl.APPLN.2299.21.odt VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Police Station Officer, Police Station, Osman Nagar, Tq.: Kandhar, Dist.: Nanded. 2. Maroti s/o Bhagwan Madke, … RESPONDENTS ... Advocate for Applicants : Mr. S.V. Gundre Addl.P.P. for respondent/State : Mr. M.M. Nerlikar Advocate for respondent No.2 : Mr. Shamsundar B. Patil … CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & R.M. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 06.02.2024 ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) : By way of these two separate applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused from cross criminal cases are seeking quashment of the crimes and the criminal cases arising therefrom, for similar offences namely Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Osman Nagar Police Station, Tq. Kandhar, District Nanded bearing Crime Nos.54/2021 and 42/2021 respectively. 2. Since in respect of a similar incident reported by the respective respondent Nos.2 the offences have been registered according to their different versions, in order to avoid repetition, at the joint request of the parties we have heard both these matters finally, simultaneously and are disposing them by this common order. 3. The FIR No.54/2021 alleges that on a public place adjacent 4/7 996.Crl.APPLN.2299.21.odt to the Hanuman Temple of the village a saffron flag used to be furled on a wooden pole in honour of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. At the initiative of an ex-MLA even the place was earmarked for constructing statute of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Since the Shiv Jayanti was approaching and since the wooden pole was damaged, a collective decision of all the villagers of all sects was taken to replace the wooden pole with an iron one by laying a proper foundation. On 08.03.2021 when the work started Maroti Bhagwan Madke who is accused No.1 therein arrived at the scene and objected to the work stating that the place where the work was going on was belonging to one Maroti Barade and stating so he entered into the ditch objecting to the construction. Somehow he was convinced to come out of the ditch but later on he went to the village collected the members of Lingayat community and obstructed the construction. The mob then indulged in pushing and pulling, abuses were hurled, matter was reported to the Tahsildar and the Police Officer, who tried to douse the dispute, however, since there was no amicable settlement the matter was reported to the police on 24.03.2021, whereupon, the offence was registered after long persuasion on 08.04.2021 and all the applicants in Criminal Application No.1693/2021 were implicated. 4. As far as the Crime No.42/2021 is concerned, the FIR was lodged by Maroti Bagwan Madke on 09.03.2021. It is alleged that when he was at home on 08.03.2021 Chandrakant Maroti Barade came to his 5/7 996.Crl.APPLN.2299.21.odt house and informed him that persons belonging to Maratha community were digging to lay foundation for erecting a pole for saffron flag. He also complained to Maroti stating that such construction would obstruct him in using his property. Maroti then reached the spot and objected to the work. He tried to point out that erection of such a construction would obstruct Chandrakant Maroti Barade and he offered to indulge in deliberations for erecting the pole at an appropriate place. Annoyed thereby, the applicants from criminal Application No.2299/2021 allegedly formed an unlawful assembly pushed him in the ditch and even started filling it with a view to trap him inside the ditch. Abuses were hurled at him and then he was assaulted and threatened of dire consequences. He then reported the matter to police and the offence was registered. 5. Having heard both the sides and even the learned APP, it appears that as far as the incident is concerned, both the sides are unanimous that the persons belonging to Maratha community started some construction activity which was objected to by the members of Lingayat community. As a result, both the sides indulged in some altercation, physical as well as verbal. In spite of some attempt to douse nothing fruitful could be achieved and both the sides lodged the police complaints on the basis of which the crimes were registered. It is therefore quite apparent that at this juncture there cannot be any dispute about the occurrence of the incident, albeit, the versions are contrary to each other. 6/7 996.Crl.APPLN.2299.21.odt 6. Interestingly, the names of all the accused have been mentioned in the FIRs. Since both the offences are in respect of formation of an unlawful assembly and alleging that all the members of unlawful assembly having acted in furtherance of the common object, no specific and exclusive role can be expected to have been attributed or attributable to a specific accused. 7. Perhaps with a view to allow both the factions to settle the dispute amicably, opportunity was extended even during pendency of these proceedings, however, nothing fruitful could transpire. 8. Powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are being invoked. The scope for this Court to indulge into the scrutiny of the material collected during the investigation is limited. We cannot resort to a mini trial. It cannot be said that the crimes have been registered without there being any substance. By no stretch of imagination can it be said to be a matter of false implication in either of these matters. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, in our considered view these are not the matters, wherein, the crime and the criminal cases can be quashed. 9. Both the applications are rejected. [ R.M. JOSHI ] JUDGE [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE habeeb 7/7