High Court
Legal Reasoning
925-*Cri-WP-1215-2023-judgment.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1215 OF 2023 Nahid Bano W/o Firoz PathanAge: 38 years, Occupation: Social WorkerR/o: Satara (Khandoba), Dist. Aurangabad… PETITIONER VERSUS1]The State of Maharashtra2]The Caste Scrutiny Committee-1,Aurangabad,Through it’s Authorised Officer,Mr. Subhash s/o Nanasaheb Bhujang, P.I.,Vigilance Committee,Divisional Officer, Aurangabad … RESPONDENTS .…Mr. Ambar S. Barlota, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for the Respondents – State .…CORAM: Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.DATE:14.01.2025ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heardfinally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for therespective parties.2.Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalfof both the sides, I have gone through the Petition paper-book. In 1 of 7
Legal Reasoning
(( 2 ))925-*Cri-WP-1215-2023-judgmentthe case in hand, only question arises that, whether the Police StationOfficer acting under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., can register an offenceunder Section 12 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, ScheduledTribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, OtherBackward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation ofIssuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000? (in short,hereinafter it would be referred as Act of 2000. 3.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner canvassed that,earlier round of litigation, the Petitioner had approached before thisCourt and instituted the Writ Petition No. 5955 of 2013 (Nahidabanow/o Ferozkhan Pathan Vs. Divisional Commissioner, AurangabadDivision and others), Challenging the order dated 19.07.2013 passedby the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad,thereby invalidated caste claim of the Petitioner. On 04.10.2013, theDivision Bench of this Court dismissed said Writ Petition and directedthe Caste Scrutiny Committee to initiate action in terms of Sections10 and 11 of the Act of 2000, against the Petitioner. In pursuance ofdirections issued by this Court, Shri Subhash Nanasaheb Bhujang, thePolice Inspector attached with Vigilance Cell of the Caste ScrutinyCommittee, Aurangabad lodged a Report with Police Station, Satara, 2 of 7 (( 3 ))925-*Cri-WP-1215-2023-judgmentDistrict Aurangabad, on 17.10.2013. Therefore, a Crime No.3068 of2013 registered against the petitioner for the offence punishableunder Sections 10, 11 and 14 of the Act of 2000. 4.After due investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filedagainst the Petitioner. During pendency of the trial, the presentPetitioner/accused filed application Exh.71 and prayed for acquittal inCrime No.3068 of 2023. On 10.03.2023, the learned Chief JudicialMagistrate, Aurangabad passed an order and rejected the applicationExh.71.5.Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner/accusedapproached before the Revisional Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C., byfiling Criminal Revision Application No.135 of 2023. On 12.07.2023,the learned Revisional Court passed the impugned order anddismissed said Criminal Revision holding that, after framing ofcharge, the Magistrate has power to discharge the accused. However,the Petitioner/accused sought acquittal on the ground of fundamentaldefect in launching the prosecution which was the issue before theHon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ratilal Bhanjit Mithani Vs. State ofMaharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 94. 3 of 7 (( 4 ))925-*Cri-WP-1215-2023-judgment6.Needless to say that, on 22.06.2015, the Division Benchof this Court at Nagpur Bench, passed the judgment in CriminalApplication No.1173 of 2010 (Vilas Rambhau Majrikar Vs. State ofMaharashtra and other connected matters) considering the scope ofSection 11(1)(a), Section 11(1)(b) and Section 11(2) of the Act of2000 and framed the following questions, which read as under:-“1] In the wake of Section 11(2) read with Section 12 of theMaharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De NotifiedTribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other BackwardClasses and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuanceand Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, whether thePolice Station Officer acting under Section 154 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure can register an offence under Section 12 ofthe Act when Section 11(2) contemplates filing of a privatecomplaint by Scrutiny Committee or its authorised officer ? 2] Whether a caste certificate obtained before 23rd May, 2001i.e. prior to coming into force of Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,Scheduled Tribes, DeNotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), NomadicTribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste CertificateAct, 2000, if found to be false or obtained by any otherfraudulent means could attract the offence under Section 11, orunder Section 13 of the Act which makes issuance of false castecertificate punishable?”7.To answer to the questions, the Hon'ble Division Benchheld in para Nos. 15 and 16, as under:- 4 of 7 (( 5 ))925-*Cri-WP-1215-2023-judgment“15] By merely making the offence under this Section 11cognizable and non-bailable, the position would not changeand the operation and effect of Section 11(2) does not getobliterated or non operational. We are therefore of the opinionthat even though offences have been made cognizable or non-bailable, Section 11(2) must be held to operate with full force.That means what is contemplated by Section 11(2) is filing of aprivate complaint by the Scrutiny Committee or its authorizedofficer before the Court who could then take cognizance. Inother words, filing of a police case is not contemplated by theaforesaid provision. 16] In the light of the above discussion with reference toquestion no.1, therefore, we are of the considered opinion thatfiling of a police case by registration of F.I.R. before the criminalCourt is not contemplated and what is contemplated is filing ofa private complaint by a Scrutiny Committee or its authorizedofficer in accordance with Chapter XV of the Code of CriminalProcedure. We, therefore, answer question no.1 accordinglyand hold that filing of final report by the police under Section173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by way of chargesheet isillegal and contrary to the provisions of law as aforesaid.” 8.In the case in hand it is not in dispute that, while passingthe Judgment order dated 04.10.2013 in Writ Petition No. 5955 of2013 (Nahidabano w/o Ferozkhan Pathan Vs. Divisional Commissioner,Aurangabad Division and others), the Division Bench of this Courtdirected the Caste Scrutiny Committee to initiate action against thePetitioner in terms of Sections 10 and 11 of the Act of 2000.Therefore, Shri Subhash Nanasaheb Bhujang, the Police Inspector 5 of 7 (( 6 ))925-*Cri-WP-1215-2023-judgmentattached with Vigilance Cell of the Caste Scrutiny Committee,Aurangabad lodged a Report with Police Station, Satara, DistrictAurangabad, on 17.10.2013 alleging that, the petitioner producedfalse and fabricated Cast Certificate alongwith false documents andclaimed for validity of the cast claim. In pursuance of said report, on17.10.2013 a Crime No.3068 of 2013 registered against the petitionerfor the offence punishable under Sections 10, 11 and 14 of the Act of2000 by taking recourse of Section 154 of Cr.P.C.9. In case of Vilas Rambhau Majrikar cited (supra), theDivision Bench of this Court held that, filing of police case byregistration of F.I.R. before the criminal Court is not contemplatedand filing of a private complaint by the Scrutiny Committee or it'sauthorized officer in accordance with Chapter 15 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, is provided. Therefore, considering the law laiddown in the cited case, filing of Final Report by the Police underSection 173 of Cr.P.C., by way of charge-sheet itself illegal and it is thefundamental procedural lapses on the part of the authorities.Therefore, the prosecution of the Petitioner will not be frutile and itwill amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, to my view, thecriminal prosecution / RCC No. 801 of 2014 pending on the file of the 6 of 7
Decision
(( 7 ))925-*Cri-WP-1215-2023-judgmentlearned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad is hereby quashed andset aside as against the present Petitioner. 10.Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] SMS 7 of 7