Dismissed

Adv. Kranti S/O Laxmanrao Dhanke and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Apr 2015WP/119/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge Bench dismissed two applications seeking quashing of an FIR registered for caste-based offences. The Court held that the incident occurred in public view, causing terror and property damage, making quashing impermissible under the law.

What did the court decide?

Relief of quashing of FIR was denied and both applications were dismissed.

Adv. Kranti S/O Laxmanrao Dhanke and Anr. Vs State of… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 Cr WP 119 & Appln 536/2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No.119 of 2015

¶4

Kranti s/o Laxmanrao Dhanke And Another.

¶5

.. Petitioners.

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra And Another.

¶8

.. Respondents.

¶9

Shri. V.D. Salunke, Advocate, for petitioners.

¶10

Shri. S.B. Pulkundwar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.1.

¶11

Shri. D.Y. Nandedkar, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶12

With

¶13

Criminal Application No.536 of 2015

¶14

Vishwanath S/o Bhanudas Bhojane And Others.

¶15

.. Applicants.

¶16

Versus

¶17

The State of Maharashtra And Another.

¶18

.. Respondents.

¶19

Shri. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate, for applicants.

¶20

Shri. S.B. Pulkundwar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.1.

¶21

Shri. D.Y. Nandedkar, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶22

2 Cr WP 119 & Appln 536/2015

¶23

CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE INDIRA K. JAIN, JJ. DATE : 23rd APRIL 2015 ORDER:

¶24

Both the applications are filed for the relief of quashing of FIR No.10/2015 registered in Tuljapur Police Station. Crime is registered for offences punishable under section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and also the provisions of the Indian Penal Code like sections 149, 427, 324, 325 etc. In the first proceeding relief is claimed for quashing of the FIR only in respect of the offences registered under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In the second proceeding relief is claimed for quashing of the entire F.I.R. Both the sides are heard.

¶25

The crime is registered on the basis of report given by Chandrakant Kamble of Sindphal, Tahsil Tuljapur, District Osmanabad. He lives in Bhimnagar locality where there are 70 to 80 houses. On 13-1-2015 when he was plying his auto rickshaw on Sindphal – Tuljapur road, at

¶26

3 Cr WP 119 & Appln 536/2015

¶27

about 6.00 p.m. quarrel started when a lady who was travelling in the auto rickshaw felt that Sukant, brother of Chandrakant was misbehaving with her. The persons from the rickshaw made the complainant to stop the rickshaw near Dhaba, hotel by name Nandanwan. This Dhaba belongs to applicant Abasaheb Kapse. The applicant and others gathered there. When the lady made complaint about the conduct of Sukant, brother of Chandrakant, he was assaulted by fist blows and kicks. On that occasion applicant Abasaheb and his employees gave abuses by taking name of the caste which is scheduled caste by calling him as Dhedgya ¼/ksMX;k½ and Mahar ¼egkj½ . After the incident Chandrakant took Sukant to his house.

¶28

At 8 p.m. on the same day the applicants and others gathered in front of house of Chandrakant and they started pelting stones on the house of the complainant. They were giving abuses by taking name of the caste in the aforesaid manner and abuses in filthy language by taking name of mother were also given. One Anandibai Kamble was assaulted with stick by one Sudarshan Pandhare. One Jitendra Dhale was assaulted by

¶29

4 Cr WP 119 & Appln 536/2015

¶30

Ajay Misal by using axe. These applicants virtually pulled down the huts of one Dayanand Thorat and Sindubai Siddhganesh. They destroyed motor cycles of Gautam Siddhganesh and Anant Dhale, who were living in the locality. Many persons from the community of the complainant were assaulted. In respect of this incident Chandrakant gave report on 14-1-2015 and crime came to be registered at 00.45 hours. The incident took place on night between 13-1-2015 and 14-1-2015.

¶31

Learned counsel for the applicants from the first proceeding submitted that prior to registration of present crime, Crime No.10, Crime No.9 was registered against Sukant and Chandrakant Kamble on the basis of report given by one lady for offences under sections 354, 354-A, 34 etc. of the Indian Penal Code. Copy of the FIR shows that it was registered at 00.10 hours on 14-1-2015 in which allegations are made by the lady about misconduct of Sukant. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that only to give counter-blast to the crime registered against Chandrakant and his brother Sukant, false report was given.

¶32

5 Cr WP 119 & Appln 536/2015

¶33

This Court has gone through the papers of investigation which include spot panchanama. It shows that damage was caused to many houses and one motor cycle was destroyed. There are stones appearing in the photographs showing that stones were pelted. The incident took in night hours and it is clear that the applicants created terror, atmosphere of fear in the entire village.

¶34

Learned counsel for the applicants from the first proceeding submitted that even if the allegations made are accepted as they are, crime could not have been registered for offences punishable under section 3(1) (r), (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He submitted that, it cannot be said that the incident took place within public view. This submission is not at all acceptable. The incident took place in front of the houses of many persons from the complainant community. Many persons from the side of the applicants were involved. Specific abuses were given and they are mentioned in the F.I.R. It cannot be said that the incident did not take place within public view as

¶35

6 Cr WP 119 & Appln 536/2015

¶36

required by the provisions of the special enactment.

¶37

The record collected is sufficient to show that damage was caused to the property of the complainant and others who have given statements. In view of these circumstances it is not possible to quash First Information Report or any part of the F.I.R.

¶38

In the result the Criminal Writ Petition and the

¶39

Criminal Application stand dismissed.

¶40

Sd/- Sd/- (INDIRA K. JAIN, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J. )

¶41

rsl

Adv. Kranti S/O Laxmanrao Dhanke and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adv. Kranti S/O Laxmanrao Dhanke and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyaprakash S/O Jagdevrao Patange Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sainath S/O Vishwanath Rokade and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vasant Bhagwatrao Papinwar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vishwanath S/O Bhanudad Bhojne and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Datta Murli Pawar C. No. 4064 Vs the State of Maharashtra

Narsinh S/O Ramkrishna Patil and Anr. Vs Sudhir S/O Keshavrao Patil and Ors.