Quashed

Rajiv Ram Bhadbhade v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Dec 2009WP/2160/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes an FIR under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court held that since the complainant turned hostile, resulting in the petitioner's acquittal on the primary rape charge, the petition became infructuous. The court quashed the specific offences under the Atrocities Act and dismissed the rest.

What did the court decide?

Quashed FIR/C.R. No. 64 of 2005 for offences under sections 3(ii),(v),(xi),(xii) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Petition dismissed.

Rajiv Ram Bhadbhade Vs the State of Maharashtra — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2160 OF 2005

¶4

Rajiv Ram Bhadbhade .. Petitioner.

¶5

V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶7

¶8

Mr. V. T. Tulpule i/by Harshad Bhadbhade for the Petitioner. Ms. P.H. Kantharia, APP for the Respondent -State.

¶9

¶10

CORAM : J. N. PATEL AND A. A. SAYED, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 05TH DECEMBER, 2009

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits

¶14

that the petitioner is acquitted of the charge under section 376 of

¶15

IPC and therefore, he does not want to prosecute the petition.

¶16

We are informed that initially C.R.No. 64 of 2005 which came to be registered against the petitioner consisted of allegations which attracted sections 3(ii),(v), (xi) (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with sections 376 & 376(d), 323 and 506 of

¶17

¶18

the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the complaint lodged by Smt. Shaila Uttam Jadhav. The chargesheet in the case came to be filed against the petitioner and his case was committed to the court of sessions. The petitioner was tried for having committed the offences under sections 376, 376(d) read with 323 & 506 of the IPC excluding the offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, i.e. The Schedule Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioner has tendered a copy of the deposition of the complainant -Shaila Uttam Jadhav which came to be recorded at Exh. 23 in Sessions Case No. 162/2008. The said copy of the deposition is taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification. In the trial, the complainant has turned hostile and the learned trial court has exonerated the petitioner. This fact situation is not disputed on behalf of the respondent -State.

¶19

In our opinion, the complainant having turned hostile, resulting in acquittal of the petitioner, nothing survives in the matter and the offence which came to be registered against the petitioner at the behest of the FIR lodged by the complainant which is annexed at Exh. ‘A’ to the petition, particularly, in respect

¶20

¶21

of the offence under section 3(ii),(v),(xi)(xii) of the S.C.& S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, there is no question of the petitioner being again prosecuted for the said offences as substantial charge against the petitioner was in respect of having raped the victim Shaila Uttam Jadhav, particularly, when the petitioner stands acquitted under the substantial charge of having committed offence under section 376, 376(d), 323, 506 of the IPC, which attracted the provisions of Sections 3(ii),(v)(xi)(xii) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as the complainant Shaila Uttam Jadhav belongs to Schedule Caste.

¶22

As the petition otherwise became infructuous but in the facts of the case we quash the FIR/C.R. No. 64 of 2005 for the offence registered against the petitioner for having committed the offence under sections 3(ii),(v),(xi),(xii) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶23

The petition stands dismissed as infructuous and accordingly disposed of.

Rajiv Ram Bhadbhade v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Ram Bhadbhade v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamil Anwar Ebzi @ John Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Viraj R. Padelkar Vs Inspector of Police and Ors.

Monica Premkumar Bedi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sherior Faramroze Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

National Stock Exchange of India Ldt. and Ors. Vs Sri Surendra Kumar Jain and Ors.

Abdul Wahid Abdullah Mapkar Vs the State of Maharashtra