Partly allowed

Vishwas Pralhad Tanpure and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Sept 2013APPLN/1889/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal application for quashing proceedings and staying investigation under SC/ST Act filed by villagers against an Anganwadi Sevika. The Court distinguished the requirement of caste reference and allowed the investigation to proceed while staying coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Investigation to proceed; coercive action against applicants stayed till final report; investigation to be carried out in time-frame.

Vishwas Pralhad Tanpure and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

cra1889.08

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1889 OF 2008

¶6

`1) Vishwas Pralhad Tanpure,` `Age-45 years, Occu:Agri.,`
`2) Dilip Arjun Tanpure,` `Age-47 years, Occu:Agri.,`
`3) Kalyan Parbat Tanpure,` `Age-60 years, Occu:Agri.,`
`4) Dnyandeo Bapurao Supekar,` `Age-45 years, Occu:Agri.,`
`5) Ramlaxman Dnyandeo Supekar,` `Age-20 years, Occu:Education,`
`6) Navnath Narsingh Tanpure,` `Age-52 years, Occu:Social Work,`
`7) Sumit Ambadas Tanpure,` `Age-35 years, Occu:Agri.,`
`All above R/o-Wadgaon Tanpura,` `Tq-Karjat, Dist-Ahmednagar.` `...APPLICANTS.`

¶7

`VERSUS`

¶8

1) The State of Maharashtra, 2) The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Karjat Division, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶9

cra1889.08

¶10

¶11

3) Vimal Raosaheb Chindhe,
 Age-47 years, Occu:Service,
 R/o-Wadgaon Tanpura,

¶12

 Tq-Karjat, Dist-Ahmednagar.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

 ...
 Shri.N.V. Gaware Advocate for Applicants.
 Shri.K.G. Patil, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.
 1 and 2.

¶15

 Shri.D.K. Kulkarni Advocate for Respondent
 No.3.

¶16

...

¶17

CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL AND
 A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

¶18

 DATE : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2013

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] :

¶20

1.Heard. Rule was issued on 31st March,

¶21

2009. On 11th June 2008, interim relief in terms

¶22

of prayer clause "(C)" was granted, as under:

¶23

"(C) Pending hearing and final
disposalofthisCriminal
application grant stay to the
furtherproceedingsand
investigation to the extent of
offence punishable under Section

¶24

cra1889.08

¶25

¶26

3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and not to
take any coercive action against the
petitioners in pursuance to F.I.R.
bearing cr. No.I-121/2008 dt.
03.06.2008 registered with Karjat
Police Station, Dist-Ahmednagar and
thatpurposeissuenecessary
orders."

¶27

2.Mr. Gaware, learned counsel says that

¶28

Respondent No.3 was Anganwadi Sevika. She was not
discharging her duties scrupulously which led
villagers to protest to the highest authorities
i.e. Chief Executive Officer. On 1st May 2008, a
composite complaint, by 52 villagers was moved, to
ventilate grievances against Respondent No.3. Even
it was followed by hunger strike in front of Zilla
Parishad, Ahmednagar. According to learned
counsel, as a counter-blast to these activities of

¶29

villagers and particularly the Applicants, the
questioned First Information Report, for the event
dated 30th May 2008, is lodged. Learned counsel
submits that prosecution is activated with malice
and is abuse of process.

¶30

cra1889.08

¶31

¶32

.The learned counsel says principles enunciated

¶33

in celebrity Judgment in the matter of State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp.(1) S.C.C. 335
and also the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the matter of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab,
A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, squarely applies. He has
placed reliance to the latest Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ravinder
Singh vs. Sukhbir Singh & others, dated 11th
January, 2013, reported in CRIMES-2013-1-125
(Supreme Court), to highlight how the provisions
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Act) are
misused. It was a case dealing with Section
3(i)(viii) of Act for frivolous prosecution of a
person belonging to Scheduled Caste. Supreme Court
has explained the term "false" and its legal
import. It is observed, legitimate indignation
does not fall within the ambit of malicious act.

¶34

cra1889.08

¶35

¶36

3.Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for

¶37

Respondent No.3 says that the prayers are
restricted for quashment of offence under Section
3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which
inherently illustrates of acceptance of event
dated 30th May 2008. He invited our attention to
ground Nos. 4 and 5 in the Petition. To defuse
those grounds, he took us through the F.I.R.,

¶38

which demonstrates reference of caste of

¶39

RespondentNo.3,asalsoofthe
accused/Applicants. The learned counsel says that
owing to the orders of this Court, investigation
is stalled and unless this Court vacates the stay,
it would not be possible to know the correctness
of the allegations.

¶40

4.We have gone through the protest dated
1st May 2008, lodged by the Applicants against
Respondent No.3 and also the F.I.R. dated 3rd
June, 2008. The matter was indeed at the

¶41

cra1889.08

¶42

¶43

embryonic stage before this Court. At the
material time, considering the legal position,
this Court (learned Single Judge) thought it fit
to stay the proceedings and Rule was issued.
However, the legal position is explained by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashabai

¶44

Machindra Adhagale vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009
A.I.R.(S.C.) 1973 by Hon'ble three Judges, wherein
expectancy of referring the caste in the F.I.R.
was held, not a condition precedent.

¶45

5.Conspectus of above facts illustrates,

¶46

unless the prosecution is allowed to proceed, to
record statements of witnesses, having either seen
the events or that it is a distortion by
Respondent No.3, the F.I.R. at this stage, should
not be terminated. At this stage, we refrain to
observe that it is a malice or tainted F.I.R., to
deflate effects of grievance dated 1st May, 2008.

¶47

6.Criminal Application partly allowed, in

¶48

cra1889.08

¶49

¶50

following terms:

¶51

(A) The investigation to proceed and
the Applicants are at liberty to
approach either this Court or the
Courtconcerned,forseeking
quashment or discharge, as the case
may be.

¶52

(B) No coercive action be taken
against the Applicants, based on the
subject prosecution arising out of
F.I.R. No.I-121 of 2008, till final
report.

¶53

(C) The investigation be carried in
a time-frame.

¶54

7.The investigator Shri. V.G. Patil was not

¶55

expected to write a letter dated 8th March, 2013
to the Registrar of this Court, to vacate stay or

¶56

cra1889.08

¶57

¶58

to allow him to proceed. He could have addressed
correspondence through channel of A.P.P., who is
quite competent to prosecute cause of the State.

¶59

[A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.] [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.]

¶60

asb/SEP13

Vishwas Pralhad Tanpure and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwas Pralhad Tanpure and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

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

Harshawardhan Raibhan Jadhav Vs R.R.Patil and Others

Anil Narayan Sadavarte and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Devanand Baburao Shinde Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Manohar Balwantrao Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Abhimanyu Rangnath Bodhwad Vs State of Mah and Anr.

The State of Mah Vs Anil Subhash Shirsath and Ors.