High Court
Legal Reasoning
cran3568.24-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD52 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3568 OF 2024 1.Sunil Murlidhar GhorpadeAge 38 years, Occ. Agri., 2.Sachin Bhausaheb GhorpadeAge 36 years, Occ. Agri.,3.Rajendra Bhausaheb @ Digambar NirmalAge 39 years, Occ. Agri.,4.Narayan Murlidhar GhorpadeAge 28 years, Occ. Agri.,5.Somnath Suryabhan GhorpadeAge 39 years, Occ. Agri., 6.Vanita Somnath GhorpadeAge 38 years, Occ. Agri., 7.Shivnath Revaji GhorpadeAge 37 years, Occ. Agri., 8.Shubham Vilas GhorpadeAge 39 years, Occ. Agri., 9.Rohan Balasaheb Nirmal Age 41 years, Occ. Agri., 10.Sanjay Shivaji KadamAge 42 years, Occ. Agri., 11.Kailash Dhondiram GhorpadeAge 44 years, Occ. Agri., 12.Nandu Govardhan Nirmal Age 46 years, Occ. Agri., cran3568.24-2- 13.Sandip Goraksh GhorpadeAge 47 years, Occ. Agri.,14.Kailash Sonyabapu GhorpadeAge 48 years, Occ. Agri.,15.Nitin Babasaheb GhorpadeAge 42 years, Occ. Agri.,16.Dipak Raghunath NirmalAge 48 years, Occ. Agri.,17.Balasaheb Raghunath NirmalAge 42 years, Occ. Agri.,18.Ramakant Bhausaheb PawarAge 38 years, Occ. Agri.,19.Dadasaheb Babasaheb GhorpadeAge 42 years, Occ. Agri.,20.Ashok Bhagwat GhorpadeAge 36 years, Occ. Agri.,21.Sopan Kakoba NirmalAge 39 years, Occ. Agri.,22.Ravi Sopan NirmalAge 44 years, Occ. Agri.,23.Ganesh Ashok NirmalAge 47 years, Occ. Agri.,24.Sagar Ravsaheb More Age 26 years, Occ. Agri.,25.Ganesh Suryabhan NirmalAge 29 years, Occ. Agri.,26.Sachin Uttamrao NirmalAge 29 years, Occ. Agri.,27.Dilip Bhagwat Parkhe
Legal Reasoning
cran3568.24-3- Age 28 years, Occ. Agri., 28.Nandu Popat ParkheAge 36 years, Occ. Agri., 29.Shekhar Sharad ParkheAge 34 years, Occ. Agri., 30.Sudhir Rangnath Parkhe Age 36 years, Occ. Agri., 31.Manoj Maruti ParkheAge 36 years, Occ. Agri., 32.Balasaheb Murlidhar ParkheAge 38 years, Occ. Agri., 33.Arjun Eknath EalleAge 36 years, Occ. Agri., 34.Dipak Prakash ParkheAge 42 years, Occ. Agri., 35.Bhausaheb Ravsaheb Daruwale Age 47 years, Occ. Agri., 36.Aditya Bhausaheb Daruwale Age 47 years, Occ. Agri., 37.Prakash Laxman Parkhe Age 44 years, Occ. Agri., 38.Surekha Shivnath GhorpadeAge 41 years, Occ. Agri., 39.Jayashri Shivaji Kadam,Age 43 years, Occ. Agri. 40.Anita Kailash GhorpadeAge 33 years, Occ. Agri. 41.Anita Sandip GhorpadeAge 32 years, Occ. Agri. cran3568.24-4- 42.Maya Kailash GhorpadeAge 31 years, Occ. Agri. 43.Sarika Nitin GhorpadeAge 39 years, Occ. Agri. 44.Namrata Dipak NirmalAge 32 years, Occ. Agri. 45.Kavita Balasaheb NirmalAge 36 years, Occ. Agri.,46.Snehal Ramakant PawarAge 37 years, Occ. Agri. 47.Jayashri Dadasaheb GhorpadeAge 39 years, Occ. Agri.48.Sangita Ashok GhorpadeAge 48 years, Occ. Agri.49.Kalpana Sopan NirmalAge 42 years, Occ. Agri. 50.Sonali Ravindra NirmalAge 48 years, Occ. Agri. 51.Shrawani Ganesh NirmalAge 41 years, Occ. Agri. 52.Minakshi Bhimraj NirmalAge 47 years, Occ. Agri. 53Somnath Vasant NirmalAge 48 years, Occ. Agri. 54.Popat Appasaheb NirmalAge 40 years, Occ. Agri. 55.Arjun Vitthal NirmalAge 37 years, Occ. Agri. cran3568.24-5- 56.Ashok Bhanudas NirmalAge 38 years, Occ. Agri. 57.Sunil Vitthal NirmalAge 34 years, Occ. Agri. 58.Ashish Chandrabhan NirmalAge 37 years, Occ. Agri. 59.Ravi Namdeo Ghorpade Age 36 years, Occ. Agri. 60.Sandip Vitthal Ghorpade Age 34 years, Occ. Agri. 61.Yogesh Dnyandeo Ghorpade Age 36 years, Occ. Agri. 62.Vishal Kantiram NirmalAge 30 years, Occ. Agri. 63.Umesh Changdeo GhorpadeAge 34 years, Occ. Agri. 64.Suraj Namdeo Nirmal Age 30 years, Occ. Agri. 65.Vikas Balkrushna Nirmal Age 34 years, Occ. Agri. 66.Mahesh Balasaheb Nirmal Age 38 years, Occ. Agri. 67.Dipak Jalindar Nirmal Age 30 years, Occ. Agri. 68.Mahesh Annasaheb Nirmal Age 30 years, Occ. Agri. 69.Dipak Jagannath GhorpadeAge 40 years, Occ. Agri. 70.Abhijit Bhimraj Nirmal cran3568.24-6- Age 32 years, Occ. Agri.71.Nikhil Prakash Nirmal Age 30 years, Occ. Agri.72.Lata Balasaheb Nirmal Age 30 years, Occ. Agri.73.Mayur Bhimraj Nirmal Age 30 years, Occ. Agri.All R/o. Nirmal Pimpri, Tq. Rahata...Applicants District Ahmednagar Versus 1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police InspectorLoni Police Station, Tq. RahataDistrict Ahmednagar 2.Sharda Sudhakar KolgeAge 45 years, Occ. LabourR/o. Nirmal Pimpri, Near SwamiSamarth Temple, Tq. RahataDistrict Ahmednagar...Respondents ...Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Avinash N. Barhate PatilAPP for Respondent No.1: Ms. Rashmi P. Gour Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Ms. Sunita G. Sonawane ….. CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATED:3rd JULY, 2025 PER COURT :- 1.The present application has been filed for quashing of F.I.R.vide C.R. No. 736 of 2023 dated 07.12.2023 registered with Loni cran3568.24-7- police station Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar for the offencespunishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 323, 427, 352,435, 448, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(z) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as“the Atrocities Act”). 2.Heard learned advocate for the applicants, learned A.P.P.for respondent No.1 State and learned advocate for respondent No.2.3.Learned advocate appearing for the applicants has takenus through the F.I.R. and submits that it is hard to imagine that, all 73named accused persons and 40 to 50 more would have committedoffence in furtherance of their common intention or with commonobject. In the F.I.R. itself, it is stated that utterance amounting toinsult of the member of Scheduled Caste is only by two ladies, byname Latabai Balasaheb Nirmal and Vanita Somnath Ghorpade.Thereafter, it is stated that Vanita Somnath Ghorpade and ShubhamVilas Ghorpade as well as Somnath Suryabhan Ghorpade entered inthe house of the informant, snatched the T.V. and damaged it bythrowing. Three gunny bags, filled in with wheat, were also thrownout of the house. It is then stated that damage was caused to theshed net, water tank, cot and mattress, which were outside the house cran3568.24-8- and also to the Tata Magic vehicle, motor cycle, clothes, utensils etc.The present applicants have been falsely roped in. He also pointsout that applicant No.3 Rajendra Bhausaheb @ Digambar Nirmal hadmade a complaint to Caste Scrutiny Committee, Ahmednagar,thereby challenging the Caste Certificate issued to the informant andby order dated 12.6.2024, the said Caste Scrutiny Committee hascancelled the caste certificate issued to the informant by the SubDivisional Officer, Shirdi, District Ahmednagar. When the castecertificate itself has been declared invalid, it would be an abuse ofprocess of law if the applicants are prosecuted for the offence underthe Atrocities Act. Further, some of the applicants are in factbelonging to the same caste / they are also member of the Scheduledcaste and therefore Section 3 of the Atrocities Act will not getattracted against them.4.Per contra, learned A.P.P. for the respondent State as wellas learned advocate for respondent No.2 have strongly opposed theapplication and submit that investigation is still incomplete but thecontents of the F.I.R. would show that even the police had arrived atthe site and therefore, the possibility of having independent eyewitnesses i.e. the police officers cannot be ruled out and therefore, letthere be an investigation. cran3568.24-9- 5.It is to be noted that the F.I.R. came to be lodged on07.12.2023 in respect of incident dated 04.12.2023. The castecertificate of the informant has been invalidated by judgment dated12.06.2024 i.e. it is a subsequent event. No doubt, a note can betaken regarding the subsequent event, however, at the same time, ithas not come on record or the investigating officer may consider thispoint and would also see as to whether the present informant haschallenged the said decision of Caste Scrutiny Committee before thisCourt. Applicant No. 3 cannot take advantage of the said decisiondated 12.06.2024 unless it has achieved finality. At this stage, wewill have to go with the statements in the F.I.R. that the informant is amember of the Scheduled Caste. 6.The F.I.R. states that alleged abuses were uttered byaccused Latabai and Vanita only. Of course, the Special Judge whileframing charge would consider as to which offence has been madeout against whom. That does not mean that at this initial stage theF.I.R. can be quashed on that count. The learned Special Judgewould also consider if the stage of framing of charge is reached thatsome of the applicants are also members of the scheduled caste, wewould only take a position of law or interpretation thereof intoconsideration in respect of applicability of Section 3 of the AtrocitiesAct. Section 3 opens with words whoever not being a member of cran3568.24-10- Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes. Therefore if the accusedalongwith co-accused has been prosecuted but if he himself is amember of Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribes then the provisionsof Atrocities Act will not be applicable to such person. But thatcannot be a ground for quashing the F.I.R. against all the persons. Itis only matter to be considered by the trial court. Same is the caseregarding damage caused to the articles belonging to the informant.Those persons, who were actually responsible for the act, would thenbe held responsible. Of course, the application of section 34 orSection 149 of I.P.C. and other offences under the I.P.C. would thenneed to be considered separately.7.In the F.I.R. itself, it is stated that the police had arrived atthe spot of incident immediately after the information was supplied tothem and therefore, the police officers, who were present there, mayalso help the prosecution in getting the evidence as to who wasexactly involved in the crime. The evidence appears to be in respectof damages and who was responsible for the same would depend onthe evidence and therefore, this is not a fit case, where we shouldexercise our inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Theapplication stands rejected against all the applicants. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)rlj/