Partly allowed

Hakim Gulab Pathan and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Sept 2010APPLN/2570/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted relief by quashing the FIR to the extent of specific offences related to caste discrimination and protection of civil rights. The court held that the domestic nature of the incident precluded an inference of these specific offences, while allowing investigation for other charges.

What did the court decide?

The application is partly allowed; the FIR is quashed only to the extent of the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sectio

Hakim Gulab Pathan and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

(1) CRI.APP. 2570.2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2570 OF 2010

¶4

1. Hakim S/o Gulab Pathan

¶5

Age : 20 years, Occu.: Labour,

¶6

R/o. Lalbag, Tq. and Dist. Jalna

¶7

2. Gulabkha Rajakkha Pathan,

¶8

Age : 55 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o. as above

¶9

3. Mumtaj Gulabkha Pathan,

¶10

Age : 50 years, Occu.: Labour, R/o. as above .. Applicants

¶11

1. The State of Maharashtra

¶12

Through Investigation Officer,

¶13

Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jalna, Dist. Jalna

¶14

 (Copy to be served on P.P.

¶15

 of High Court of Judicature

¶16

 of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad)

¶17

2. Kavita w/o. Mahadev Khandale Age : 35 years, Occu.: Household, R/o. Lalbag, Tq. and Dist. Jalna .. Respondents

¶18

Mr. R.V. Gore, Advocate for the Applicants

¶19

Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent-State

¶20

Mr. A.K. Chitnis, Advocate for the respondent no.2

¶21

...

¶22

CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2010

¶23

ORAL ORDER:-

¶24

1.By consent, the Application is being

¶25

disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

¶26

(2) CRI.APP. 2570.2010

¶27

2.Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and

¶28

respondent no.2 and learned APP for the State.

¶29

3.Perusal of the FIR filed by respondent no.2
(complainant) purports to show that on 9.6.2010, the
applicants barged into her house at about 4.00 – 4.30

¶30

pm. The applicant no.1 allegedly hugged the

¶31

respondent no.2 (complainant) and told her that he
would keep her as concubine. The applicants no. 2
and 3 allegedly held her at the relevant time whereas
the applicant no.1 outraged her modesty and also

¶32

assaulted her by means of a knife. It is also
alleged that the applicants no. 2 and 3 abused the
respondent no.2 by stating that she was of inferior

¶33

caste and used abusive language such as 'Halkat' (' gkydV ').

¶34

4.The FIR is registered on basis of private
complaint which was referred to the Police Station
under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.

¶35

(3) CRI.APP. 2570.2010

¶36

5.The learned Advocate for the applicants
restricts the challenge to the FIR only to the extent
of offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under section 7(1)(d) of
the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.

¶37

6.Assuming that whatever accusations made in
the FIR are required to be accepted as they stand
then also it is difficult to infer that the offence
may come within the ambit of section 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the said Act") or
under the provisions of section 7(1)(d) of the
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The main
reason is that the applicants allegedly intruded in
the residential house of the respondent no.2
(complainant) and addressed the so-called abusive
language to her. That was not in the public view nor

¶38

anybody was present in the house except the
respondent no.2 as per her complaint. So far as the

¶39

(4) CRI.APP. 2570.2010

¶40

remaining part of the FIR is concerned, the
investigation machinery may proceed with the
investigation but as regards the offence under
section 3(1)(x) of the said Act is concerned, in view
of "Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare and anr. V. State of

¶41

Maharashtra 2005(4) Crimes 659" and "Udaysingh
Ramsingh Pawar V. State of Maharashtra and anr.
2009(2) B Cr C 750", there does not appear any
material to infer commission of the offence under the
said acts.

¶42

7.In the result, the Application is partly

¶43

allowed and the FIR only to the extent of offence
under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
and under section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil
Rights Act, 1955 stands quashed though it may be
considered unaffected to the extent of remaining part
thereof. Application disposed of.

¶44

 [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]

¶45

arp

Hakim Gulab Pathan and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hakim Gulab Pathan and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Mah Vs Ram Babruwan Chendke and Ors.

Navnath Nagari Sahakari Patsansthal Maryadit Parola Vs Dilip Bhila Patil

Sayyad Zakir Hussain Vs Sau Reshma Mumtaz Zakir Sayyad and Anr.

M/S Jayraj Jwellers Vs Satyaprakash Bansilal Varma

Mohd Imam Ul Haque Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Anr.

Deepak Karamsingh Malke and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra