High Court
Legal Reasoning
cria-3212.236upon Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, 2021CRI. L.J. 1, and say that in order to prove offence under Section3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and ScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the prosecution should evenprima facie make out the case that the alleged insulting wordswere uttered in presence of an independent witness (not anyrelative or friend).7.Another fact to be noted is that in view of the charge-sheet, statement of said Bhujang Chinche has been recorded andhe has stated that since his childhood he was serving as yearlyservant with one Prakash Patil Ratolikar. He is not claiming thathe is getting any salary or amount from Rajesh Pawar. He rathersays that the land belonging to his owner is adjacent to the landbelonging to said Rajesh Pawar and he is on visiting terms withthe informant. Thus, his statement gives another picture that hehad no concern with Rajesh Pawar and his land, as well asdispute. Then question arises, as to why the accused personswould have behaved with him in such way. There was nointention at all. Said Bhujang Chinche is also not saying thatanother third independent witness was present at the spot whocould have heard the alleged insulting words uttered by the cria-3212.237applicant. Therefore, even prima facie, no case is made out forattracting the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of theScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act.8.The police have invoked now, at the time of filing of thecharge-sheet, offence under Section 4 punishable underSection 25 of the Indian Arms Act. The incident is stated to havetaken place at Naigaon, District-Nanded. As per Section 4 of theIndian Arms Act there should be a Notification prohibiting anyarm to be carried or displayed by any person. Learned APP hasplaced on record the Notification dated 6th September, 1980,under the Arms Act, which states that in the exercise of powersof the Central Government under Section 4 of the Arms Act,delegated to the Government of Maharashtra by the Governmentof India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Notification No. GSR.1309,dated 13th October 1962, the Governor of Maharashtra hasissued the said Notification. There are 12 Districts in respect ofwhich the said Notification under Section 4 of the Arms Act waspromulgated. However, in the list of Districts, there is nomention of Nanded District. Under such circumstance, when thebasic ingredient was not attracted regarding the Notification by cria-3212.238either the Central Government or the State Government, as thecase may be, the learned Magistrate ought not to have takencognizance of the said offence. 9.Now, as regards the Sections under the Indian Penal Codeare concerned, certainly the material on record in the charge-sheet make out the case as against the present applicant andtherefore, we are of the opinion that the Application deserves tobe partly allowed. Hence, we pass following order:- O R D E R(I)The Application stands partly allowed.(II) The proceedings i.e. the Charge-sheet No.83of 2023 pending before the Special Judge underthe Atrocities Act, Biloli, District-Nanded, arisingout of the the First Information Report vide CrimeNo. 104 of 2023 registered with Police Station,Naigaon, Taluka-Naigaon (Kh.), District-Nanded,stands quashed and set aside to the extent ofoffence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 4punishable under Section 25 of the Indian Arms cria-3212.239Act, as against applicant - Shriram S/o GovindraoPawar.(III)We clarify that the charge-sheet wouldremain in respect of Sections 143, 147, 148, 323,342, 327, 427, 447, 504, 506 of the Indian PenalCode. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE asb/APR25
Arguments
cria-3212.231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3212 OF 2023Shriram S/o Govindrao Pawar,Age-65 years, Occu:Agriculturist,R/o-Naigaon (Kh.), District-Nanded. ...APPLICANT VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, For Police Station, Naigaon, Tq-Naigaon (Kh.), District-Nanded,2) The District Superintendent of Police, Police Station, Nanded, District-Nanded,3) Mashnaji S/o Shankarrao Murke, Age-45 years, Occu:Laborer (Saal-gadi), R/o-Atkali, Tq-Biloli, At present R/o- Aluwadgaon, Tq-Naigaon, District-Nanded,4) Bhujang S/o Balaji Chinche, Age-35 years, Occu:Laborer, R/o-aluwadgaon, Tq-Naigaon, District-Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Pratap P. Mandlik Advocate for Applicant. Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Sandeep Sonawane Advocate h/f. Mr. S.S. Thombre Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. ... CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 11th MARCH, 2025 cria-3212.232ORDER [PER SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.] :1.Present Application has been filed under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, initially, for quashing the FirstInformation Report (for short “the FIR”) vide Crime No. 104 of2023, registered with Police Station, Naigaon, Taluka-Naigaon(Kh.), District-Nanded, for the offence punishable under Sections143, 147, 148, 323, 342, 327, 427, 447, 504, 506 of the IndianPenal Code and under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act andunder Section 4 punishable under Section 25 of the Indian ArmsAct and by way of amendment for quashing the proceedings i.e.the Charge-sheet No.83 of 2023 pending before the SpecialJudge under the Atrocities Act, Biloli, District-Nanded2.Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pratap Mandlik for theapplicant, learned APP Mr. Kulkarni for respondent Nos. 1 and 2and learned Advocate Mr. Sandeep Sonawane holding for learnedAdvocate Mr. S.S. Thombre for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 3.Learned Advocate for the applicant has taken us throughthe FIR and the entire charge-sheet. He submits that the cria-3212.233informant is in fact Maratha by caste but then he involves oneBhujang Balaji Chinche, who according to the informant, isanother yearly servant, in the incident and the applicant andothers stated to have abused said Bhujang Chinche in the nameof caste. However, if we peruse the statement of said BhujangChinche, who is in fact merely 18 years of age on the date of hisstatement, he says that since his childhood he is serving asyearly servant with one Prakash Patil Ratolikar. Said Prakash PatilRatolikar is not at all related to the incident and therefore, theintention is very clear that any how the investigation ought tohave been by the Deputy Superintendent of Police rank Officerand to give caste colour to the dispute. In fact there is disputepending in respect of the land between the present applicant andhis distant relative Mr. Rajesh Pawar, the sitting Member of theLegislative Assembly (for short “the MLA”) and therefore, it cancertainly be said that the informant, who himself is a yearlyservant of Maratha caste, has lodged the FIR at the instigation ofthe said MLA. Present applicant is handicapped person, having70% disability and therefore, it is improbable and impossiblethat he would have committed such crime i.e. going along withsome unknown persons in the field of said MLA, snatching theRedmi Mobile, assaulting the informant and also snatching 5 cria-3212.234gram gold ring, confining him in a room in the field anddamaging the soybean crop. It would be, therefore, unjust to askthe applicant to face the trial. 4.The Application has been strongly opposed by the learnedAPP as well as learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.3and 4. It is stated that though the informant is Maratha by casteyet another servant i.e. Bhujang Chinche is Mahadev Koli bycaste, which comes under the scheduled caste and against whomthe insulting words were used. 5.Here, it is to be noted that the informant, respondent No.3Mashnaji Murke himself is a yearly servant of Mr. Rajesh Pawar,the MLA. He has stated that there are disputes in respect ofownership over the land between Mr. Rajesh Pawar and thepresent applicant. Informant states that the incident took placearound 5.00 p.m. on 31st July 2023. The applicant went alongwith 4 to 5 unknown persons in the field, went near the placewhere the informant was taking meals, informant’s ReadmiMobile was snatched, he was assaulted by fists by saying that heshould allow the applicant to carry out the agriculturaloperations. Then he snatched 5 gram gold ring from the hand of cria-3212.235the informant and gave threats to kill with the help of sugarcanecutting knife. The informant was sitting inside the room in thestructure which was constructed in the field and when he tried tocome outside and peeped from the left side window, he foundmore 10 to 15 persons outside the structure and then thepresent applicant locked the informant in that room. Twotractors were called and damage was caused to Soybean cropworth Rs.35,000/-. The informant then says that after about halfan hour to one hour, his co-yearly servant Bhujang Chinchecame there. At that time the applicant asked said BhujangChinche as to why he has come inside the field. Even his mobilewas snatched. He was assaulted by unknown person and thenthe applicant by giving threats to Bhujang Chinche, insulted himin the name of the caste. Thereafter the agricultural implementswere taken out from the said room and the informant was told togo from that place by saying that the applicant has possessionover the entire property. 6.Thus, it is to be noted that even from the bare reading ofthe FIR, it can be considered that at the time when the allegedincident took place, except informant, applicant and saidBhujang Chinche, nobody else was present at the spot. We rely