Dismissed

Chandrakant Dagadu Chavan and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Sept 2010APPLN/341/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal application seeking quashing of an FIR under IPC and Atrocities Act alleging caste discrimination and assault. The court rejected the application, finding the delay in lodging the FIR reasonable, Rule 7 compliance irrelevant for investigation initiation, and sufficient ingredients of the offences present despite political rivalry.

What did the court decide?

Liberty for anticipatory bail granted; Criminal Application for quashing of FIR rejected.

2.Learned advocate for the applicants states that she is pressing this application only in respect of quashing of FIR and as far as the prayer for anticipatory bail is concerned, she seeks liberty to move before the appropriate Court for the said relief. Liberty as prayed for is granted.

3.The applicants are seeking quashing of FIR No.117 of 2009 registered with Natepute Police Station, Solapur. The said FIR is under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506 of IPC and Sections 7(1)(d) and 10 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act

4.The facts as disclosed in the FIR are that on 8th December 2009, little after 6 pm, the complainant who belongs to Mahar caste along with three other persons from his Samaj were proceeding to kirana shop in the bazar. When they reached near the ST Stop, applicant no. 1 stopped his vehicle in front of the complainant. The other accused were also in the vehicle at that time. Thereafter, all of them insulted the complainant in relation to his caste. They also assaulted the complainant and the other three witnesses and threatened to kill them. They specifically told the complainant and other witnesses that henceforth, they could not use the road in the village. The complainant and other witnesses sustained injuries in the incident and in fact became unconscious. In the complaint, it is specifically stated that as the houses of the complainant and applicant no. 1 were situated nearby, the accused were aware about the caste of the complainant.

there is delay in lodging the FIR which itself indicates that the FIR Is a false one. The incident had occurred on 8th December 2009, little after 6.00 pm, however, the FIR was lodged on the next day at about 3.15 pm which delay according to her creates grave doubt about the veracity of the case.

6.To support her contention that if there is delay in lodging the FIR, it raises doubt about the case of the complainant and hence, the FIR ought to be quashed, learned advocate for the applicant placed reliance on a decision in the case of Chandra Poojari Vs The State of Maharashtra reported in 1998 Cri. L.J. 53.

However, on going through the facts of the said case, it appears that the incident took place on 28th December 1995 whereas the FIR came to be lodged on 2nd March 1996. In such case, it was held that there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR which creates a doubt. Besides the delay in lodging FIR, it was found there was no disclosure in the complaint that the occurrence had taken place in public view. Moreover, it was observed that there was no material to show that the accused therein was aware of the caste of the complainant, hence, on these three grounds, the FIR came to be quashed.

Moreover, prima facie some explanation has been furnished by the complainant for the delay in lodging the FIR. In the present case, incident had taken place near the ST Stop at evening time, hence, the incident had occurred within public view. Moreover, in the FIR, it is clearly stated by the complainant that as he was residing near to the house of applicant no. 1, the accused persons were aware of his caste. Thus, this decision cannot come to the aid of the applicants.

7.On perusal of the FIR itself, it is seen that the complainant and other witnesses were injured in the incident and they had become unconscious. They were taken to hospital for treatment. On the very next day, when they felt a little better, the FIR came to be lodged. At this initial stage, I prima facie find that there is some reasonable explanation for delay in lodging the FIR. However, only after the entire evidence has been led in the case, the trial Court can come to the conclusion whether the delay has been satisfactorily explained or nor. Looking to the facts of this case, the FIR cannot be quashed on the ground of delay.

8.The learned advocate for the applicants thereafter contended that Rule 7 of the Schedule Castes and the Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 has not been followed. She submitted that this rule is mandatory

and no investigation can be conducted by a police officer who is below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. In order to substantiate her contention, she has placed reliance on the fact that the FIR was got registered by a PSI. Rule 7 only stipulates about investigation of an offence under this Act and it makes no stipulation about who can register the FIR. Investigation in a case can only commence if the FIR is registered, therefore, if a PSI had registered the FIR under this Act, it does not mean that he will continue to investigate the matter. There is nothing to substantiate the averment that Rule 7 has not been complied with.

9.Ms. Parasnis, learned advocate for the applicants, thereafter, submitted that applicant no. 1 at the relevant time was taking treatment in rural hospital at Yavat. To support her contention, she has placed reliance on the medical certificate issued by the rural hospital, Yavat which shows that applicant no. 1 was examined on 8th December, 2009. As per the said certificate, he was advised rest for a period of three days. She submitted that as applicant no. 1 was taking treatment in the rural hospital at Yavat, he could not have participated in the incident which shows that he has been falsely implicated in this case and it also shows that the entire FIR and the case of the complainant is false.

has raised defence of alibi. The medical certificate does not state the time when applicant no. 1 was examined, hence, even assuming that applicant no. 1 took treatment in the rural hospital at Yawat, it is possible that he could have taken treatment in the morning and was present at the scene of offence at the time when the incident occurred. In any event, this is a defence raised by the applicant no. 1 and he has to prove the same by leading evidence before the trial Court. At this stage, on the basis of this medical certificate, it cannot be said that it was not possible for the applicant no. 1 to remain present at the scene of the offence and participate in the incident.

this FIR has been lodged on account of political rivalry, which is clear from a reading of the FIR. She submitted that in cases of political rivalry, every quarrel or alteration between Higher Caste and Scheduled Castes would not ipso facto constitute acts of commission of offence which are capable of cognizance under the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Protection of Civil Rights Act. To support her contention, she has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Ashok Lakhaji Halmare Vs The State of Maharashtra reported in2006(1) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 171 However, on perusal

of the said decision, I find that it is further observed therein that only when the imputation are grossly vague and perfunctory, then an FIR can be quashed. In the present case, no doubt, the genesis of the FIR is political rivalry between the parties, however, all the ingredients as required under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xiv) of the Atrocities Act as well as the relevant Section of the Protection of Civil Rights Act are found in the FIR. The averments contained in the FIR prima facie spells out the commission of an offence under the said Act. Thus, this decision will not be of any help to the applicants.

11. Ms. Parasnis, the learned advocate for the applicant placed reliance on the observations in para 10 of a decision in the case of Ramchandra Govindrao Watkar & Anr. Vs The State of Maharashtra reported in 1995(2) Mh.L.J. 669 wherein it is observed that in a case where there is political rivalry, the FIR can be quashed. However, on perusal of the said decision, more particularly para 10, it is observed therein that FIR can be quashed if it does not disclose any offence punishable under the Prevention of Atrocities Act. In the present case, I have already observed that all the necessary ingredients of the offence under IPC, Atrocities Act and the Protection of Civil Rights Act are clearly made out in the FIR, hence, no case is made out for quashing of

12.Lastly, Ms. Parasnis submitted that this FIR has arisen out of political rivalry on account of incident which had taken place about six months prior to lodging of the FIR. She pointed out that sister of applicant no. 1 has lodged an FIR against the complainant and others from his group wherein apprehension was expressed that the complaint would be lodged against her brother and others under the Prevention of Atrocities Act. She submitted that the present FIR is only an outcome of that complaint and has been filed as a counter blast to that complaint. First of all, the incident of lodging FIR by the sister of applicant no. 1 took place six months prior whereas the present FIR is lodged after a lapse of six months. The complainant would not have waited for six months to falsely involve the applicants. Looking to the fact that a complaint was lodged by the sister of applicant no. 1 way back in May 2009 whereas this FIR has been lodged in the month of December 2009, it appears that there is some previous enmity between both sides on account of political rivalry. Enmity is a double edged weapon. Due to enmity, incidents of this nature can occur and a person can also be falsely implicated. However, looking to the averments in the FIR, no case is made out for quashing of the FIR. Hence, the

Chandrakant Dagadu Chavan and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Dagadu Chavan and Ors. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushila Khushru Baxter Vs the General Manager , Vijaya Bank and Ors.

Mohammed Gous Moula Ali Sighavi and Ors. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.

Dharmesh Nalin Ojha and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohan Nivrutti Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chandrakant Dagadu Chavan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajay Sripoojan Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra