High Court

Legal Reasoning

( 1 ) crap873.24+IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 873 OF 2024WITHCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 885 OF 2024Mr. Pankajkukar s/o. Sanjaykumar Magar & Ors... AppellantsVersusMr. Tukaram s/o. Gangaram Rayalla & Ors... RespondentsMr. P.S. Magar, Party-in-person (appellant no.1) present.Smt. Sarika R. Pawar and Mr. V.B. Kale, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1,4 to 6.Mr. S.S. Ghodke and Mr. V.B. Karande, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2and 3.Mr. R.B. Dhaware, APP for the respondent-State.CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.RESERVED ON:27.06.2025PRONOUNCED ON:17.07.2025ORDER :-01.These Criminal Appeals are arising out of orders dated31.07.2024 and 16.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional SessionsJudge, Aurangabad and learned Special Judge, S.C. & S.T. (POA) Act,Aurangabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 351 of 2024 & CriminalMisc. Application No. 350 of 2024 respectively. The learned Trial Court,by way of the impugned orders, rejected the said applications of the ( 2 ) crap873.24+present appellants. The appellants by way of said applications had prayedfor issuance of directions for investigation under section 175 (3) of theBhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”).02.The appellants had approached the learned Sessions Judge,after the police refused to register FIR and even the Senior PoliceInspector also refused to register the offence. It is case of the appellantsthat they happen to be persons belonging to Scheduled Caste. They areowner of plot No.1, admeasuring 2227.059 sq. mtr. from Gat No. 154 ofvillage Mitmita, Tq. & Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar. When they went to theirplot on 01.05.2024, they found four persons standing on the plot. Therewas a board showing owner of the plot to be Tukaram Gangaram Rayalla.These persons told that the plot belongs to them and they are putting upthe board. On informing that the plot belongs to the appellants and theirfamily, they directed to stop the work of putting up the board.Respondent Shivaji called respondent No.2 Kisan Kanse. RespondentNo.2 thus came and told that he is having papers in respect of the saidproperty, however, refused to give the papers. Inspite of resistance bythe appellants, the respondents continued to do the work of putting upthe board. ( 3 ) crap873.24+03.On this, the appellants made complaint to Chhavni policestation on 02.05.2024. It is stated that the appellants happen to bepersons belonging to the Scheduled Caste. The respondents aredeliberately trying to harass the appellants as the appellants because oftheir caste. It is case of the appellants that inspite of specific complaint,the police refused to accept the complaint and to register the FIR. Ontheir refusal, the appellants filed a complaint with the Commissioner ofPolice, Chh. Sambhajinagar on 14.05.2024. However, even theCommissioner of Police failed to take cognizance of the complaint. Sinceno cognizance was taken by the police, the appellants filed Misc. CriminalApplications in the Sessions Court, seeking directions under section175(3) of the BNSS. The learned Trial Court considered the applications.It is observed that the applicants took search on the Government Web-site and found that in respect of land Gat No. 154, there is consent deeddated 07.02.2024 between accused/present respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6.The Court considered that the dispute is about the ownership of a plotfrom Gat No.154 and observed that it is purely a civil dispute betweenthe parties. It is open for the parties to take recourse to the law beforethe appropriate Authority. The Court did not find any material sufficientenough to direct the police to conduct investigation. It also observedthat there are no ingredients attracting provisions of the Maharashtra ( 4 ) crap873.24+Control of Organized Crime Act [for short “MCOC Act”] and rejected theapplications, as mentioned above.04.Appellant No.1 has appeared in person and addressed thisCourt. He submits that the property belongs to the appellants. Therespondents without any authority have taken the law in their hand andare claiming to be owners of the said plot. On asking, they could notproduce any documents showing their ownership. They areunauthorizedly grabbing the property. The respondents are in habit ofgrabbing the property especially open plots of others. He thus submitsthat even the provisions of the MCOC Act are attracted as therespondents have grabbed various properties in this manner. He furthersubmits that the respondents have knowledge that the appellants belongto the Scheduled Caste and deliberately they are trying to oust theappellants. This clearly attracts provisions of section 3(1) (f), (g), (r) and3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act [for short “Atrocities Act”]. He referred various litigationsand cases pending against the respondents, before various forums andstrenuously submits that provisions of the MCOC Act are clearlyattracted. He relies upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in thecases of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., ( 5 ) crap873.24+(2014) 2 SCC 1 and Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma Vs. State ofGujarat & Ors., [arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 3154 of 2024].05.Learned Advocates for the respondents vehemently opposethe applications. It is submitted that the dispute is purely of a civilnature. The claim of both the parties is about ownership of open plot. Itis open for the appellants to approach the Civil Court and claim theownership. Just to avoid civil litigation, the appellants are trying to dragthe respondents in criminal cases only to harass the respondents and topressurize them and to make them to come to some compromise terms.There was no reason for the respondents to show the documents to theappellants. The police have rightly not registered any FIR. Even theCommissioner of Police found it to be a case of civil nature and rightly didnot direct the police station to register the offence. The learned TrialJudge has considered all these aspects and arrived at correct conclusionthat the dispute is about the property and has rightly passed the order.06.The learned APP submits that the police at Chhavni PoliceStation considered the application. It is seen that the dispute is clearly acivil dispute and therefore rightly no FIR was registered. Even theCommissioner of Police found that there is no substance in the ( 6 ) crap873.24+allegations. Learned APP thus supports the impugned orders.07.This Court has heard arguments of all the parties and seenthe documents along with appeal memo. On hearing the parties, it isclearly seen that the allegation is that the respondents were seen on theplot allegedly belonging to the appellants. The appellants had shownmutation entry No. 11319, showing their ownership on the plot, whichwas taken in revenue record and certified on 29.09.2018. The appellantshave produced on record the caste certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad in favour of appellant No.1 showing thatthey belong to scheduled caste – Mahar (37).08.On going through the complaints, no doubt there are entriesin the name of the appellants. However, those are of 2018. Thecontents of the complaint show that respondent No.1 is a person inwhose name the board on the plot is put up. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 aresons of accused No.1. Accused No.4 is said to be a person allegedly aco-owner of the plot. Accused No.2 is a person who was called by theparties on the spot on 01.05.2024, when the appellants foundrespondent No.1 on the spot along with others. The role alleged againstrespondent Nos. 2 and 3 is that they are the persons who told others to ( 7 ) crap873.24+put cement poles and limestone powder marking. Thereafter, theappellants called police. Police came to the spot, however, did not takeany action. The police failed to take cognizance even after narrating theincident of the events on that day. It is the allegation that though theappellants asked for ownership documents, the accused persons couldnot furnish the same. Since all the accused came there, the case wasmade out of criminal conspiracy. The details of other cases are given. Itis alleged that the accused persons voluntarily obstructed the appellantsand prevented them from proceeding into their own plot, which amountsto wrongful restraint. It is further alleged that there is mischiefcommitted by the accused persons. There are allegations of trespass,forgery of documents, wrongful occupation of plots and on all theseallegations it is argued that a case is made out even under the MCOCAct.09.Looking to the complaints as it is, what is seen is that thedispute is over the property i.e. open plot. Merely because theappellants happen to be persons from Scheduled Caste, will not makeout a case attracting the provisions of the Atrocities Act. What appears isthat the case is of a Civil nature. ( 8 ) crap873.24+10.In the judgment of Lalita Kumari (supra), the Hon’ble ApexCourt held that when cognizable offence is made out, it is duty of thepolice authority to register complaint under section 154 of the Cr.P.C. Inthe judgment of Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma (supra), the Hon’bleApex court by relying on the judgment of Lalita Kumari (supra), statedthat registration of FIR is mandatory under section 154 of the Cr.P.C., ifthe information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Scopeof preliminary enquiry is limited to situations where the informationreceived does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence but requiresverification. It is held that preliminary enquiry must be conducted inevery case before registration of FIR. The appellants’ case, therefore, isthat there was no question of conducting any preliminary enquiry andoffience ought to have been registered.11.On going through the FIR, as already observed, it purelyappears to be a case of civil dispute. There is noting to show thatcognizable offence was made out requiring investigation at the hands ofpolice. This Court finds that there is no merit in the appeals. No case ismade out calling for interference in the impugned orders. The Trial Courthas rightly passed orders. No illegality or perversity is shown in theimpugned orders. The complaint is not outrightly rejected, but the ( 9 ) crap873.24+complainant is directed to appear for recording verification statement.Till now no verification is recorded. It is thus seen that the appellantsare interested only in using police machinery. The motive clearly appearsto bring pressure on the respondents. This Court, therefore, does notfind merit in the appeals.12.The Criminal Appeals, therefore, stand dismissed.[KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2025/JUL25/crap873.24+