Dismissed

Sangita D/O Dhondiba Ingole v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC2 May 2016APPLN/1331/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application invoking Section 156(3) CrPC, the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, examined an allegation of caste-based assault by a Zilla Parishad Chief Executive Officer. The Court found the complaint to be mala-fide, lacking substance based on police investigation and witness affidavits, and consequently dismissed the application while awarding costs.

What did the court decide?

Criminal application rejected; applicant directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 to respondent no. 2.

Sangita D/O Dhondiba Ingole Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

Cr.Appln. 1331/16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1331/2016

¶6

Sangita d/o Dhondiba Ingole,
age 45 yrs., occu.service
(Head Mistress) r/o Prabhat Nagar,
Nanded Tq. & Dsit.Nanded.
...Applicant..

¶7

Versus

¶8

1] The State of Maharashtra.

¶9

2] Shri Abhimanyu s/o Raghunath Kale, age 50 yrs., occu.service, r/o Zilla Parishad, Nanded. Tq. & Dist.Nanded. ...Respondents...

¶10

 .....

¶11

Shri Suresh M. Kulkarni, Advocate for applicant.
Shri A.B. Girase, Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1.
Shri S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶12

 .....

¶13

CORAM: R.M. BORDE &
 K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 02.05.2016

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Borde, J.) :

¶15

1]Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule.

¶16

Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties, the application is taken
for final disposal at the stage of admission.

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

2]This is an application by the applicant, who is
serving as the Head Mistress in a school operated by the
Zilla Parishad, Nanded. The applicant tendered an
application to the Police Inspector, Vazirabad Police
Station, Nanded, on 1.2.2016 alleging therein that on
1.2.2016 while she had been to the office of the Zilla
Parishad at about 1-30 to 2-00 p.m., the Chief Executive
Officer Shri Abhimanyu Kale accosted her near stair-case
and asked her to leave the place. It is alleged that he
abused her on the ground of caste and pushed her back.
The incidence was witnessed by witnesses Baburao Shinde
and Namdeo Panchal. According to the complainant, since
the incident has taken place at a public place and that
she belongs to scheduled caste category, which fact was
known to the accused – Abhimanyu Kale, as such an offence
under the purview of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is made out.

¶19

3]According to the applicant, since Police did not
initiate action, she tendered an application to the Court

¶20

of Sessions at Nanded, which was registered as
Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.17/2016. The
applicant requested for directing investigation u/s

¶21

Cr.Appln. 1331/16

¶22

- 3 -

¶23

156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The

¶24

learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated 8.2.2016, has
refused to issue directions mainly on the ground that the
respondent no.2 – accused is a public servant and no
sanction has been secured for proceeding against him and
as such in view of the bar contained u/s 197 of the Code

¶25

of Criminal Procedure, no order is deemed necessary
directing investigation by the Police. The learned
Sessions Judge rejected the said application.

¶26

4]The learned counsel appearing for the applicant

¶27

– complainant contends that the act alleged against the
accused does not form the part of his duties and as such
the said act cannot be said to have been committed in the
official capacity while performing his duties. Reliance
is placed on the judgment in the matters of

¶28

[1] Inspector of Police & another v. Battenapatla Venkata Ratnam & another (2015 ALL MR (Cri) 2064 (S.C.)

¶29

[2] Choudhury Parveen Sultanan v. State of West Bengal & another (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 398

¶30

[3] Rajib Ranjan & others v. R. Vijaykumar (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 513 .

¶31

5]The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the

¶32

respondent no.1 – State placing reliance on the judgment

¶33

Cr.Appln. 1331/16

¶34

- 4 -

¶35

in the matter of Anil Kumar & others v. M.K. Aiyappa & another (2014 AIR (SC) (Supp) 1801 , has contended that in order that the public servant may not be unnecessarily harassed on a complaint of an unscrupulous person, it is obligatory on the part of the executive authority to protect. If the law requires sanction and the Court proceeds against the public servant without sanction, the

¶36

public servant has a right to raise the issue of jurisdiction as the entire action may be rendered void ab initio .

¶37

petitioner is serving as a Head Mistress in a school
operated by the Zilla Parishad and that the respondent
no.2 - Abhimanyu Kale is functioning as Chief Executive

¶38

Officer of the Zilla Parishad, is not a matter of
controversy. The incident is alleged to have happened in

¶39

the premises of the Zilla Parishad. It is a matter of

¶40

debate as to whether the place where the offence is

¶41

alleged to have taken place can be said to be a public

¶42

place within the public view so as to attract the
provisions of the Atrocities Act. However, we do not
deem it necessary to advert to this aspect at this stage.

¶43

- 5 -

¶44

7]Apart from the defence of want of sanction, on

¶45

many other grounds, the complaint is not liable to be
entertained. The Police have conducted a preliminary
investigation into the matter. We directed the

¶46

Superintendent of Police to tender an affidavit in reply,
which has been presented by Shri Vishweshwar Prabhakarrao

¶47

Nandedkar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nanded. It
is recorded by the investigating officer in the affidavit

¶48

that the statements of the witnesses named in the

¶49

complaint to the Court namely Baburao Amrutrao Shinde and

¶50

Namdeo Narayan Panchal have been recorded by the
investigating machinery. Namdeo Panchal is the Head

¶51

Master of Zilla Parishad Girls High School at Kinwat. He

¶52

claims in his statement that the complainant met him at

¶53

Zilla Parishad office at about 11-40 a.m. He further
claims that no incidence, as alleged, has happened in his

¶54

presence and it is not known as to why his name is
referred to by the complainant in her complaint.
Similarly, the statement of the Body Guard of the
respondent no.2 – Chief Executive Officer is recorded on
2.2.2016 by the Police. He also denies the happening as

¶55

alleged by the complainant. This witness claims that all

¶56

Cr.Appln. 1331/16

¶57

- 6 -

¶58

the while he was with the Chief Executive Officer and it
is part of his duties. One Mr.Amjad Khan's statement has
been recorded by the Police, who is functioning as the
Driver and he is assigned the duties with the Chief
Executive Officer. He also has denied the happening as
alleged by the complainant.

¶59

8]Apart from this, the Deputy Superintendent of
Police placed reliance in his affidavit on information in
writing tendered by the Chief Executive Officer on

¶60

28.10.2015 to the Police wherein he has raised an
apprehension that a Union of the employees functioning at
Zilla Parishad is likely to tender a complaint against

¶61

him under the Atrocities Act. The apprehension was

¶62

expressed in a complaint by the Chief Executive Officer
on 28.10.2015 few days before lodging of the complaint by
the applicant. It is stated in the application tendered

¶63

to the District Collector, Nanded, by the Chief Executive

¶64

Officer on 6.2.2016 that the Teachers' Union has

¶65

continued agitations against him since the month of
October, 2015, for his removal. It is alleged that one
Shri Parmeshwar Gonare is the leader of the employees,

¶66

who has raised slogans in the meetings dated 12.10.2015;

¶67

Cr.Appln. 1331/16

¶68

- 7 -

¶69

18.10.2015; 26.10.2015 and 28.10.2015, and has also
expressed his intention to lodge complaint against the
respondent no.2 – Chief Executive Officer implicating him

¶70

in a crime under the Atrocities Act. A compact disk of
the recording of the proceedings of the meeting wherein

¶71

threats were extended is presented to the Police
authorities. It thus appears that the lodging of the

¶72

complaint at the instance of the applicant was a part of
the conspiracy / design by those who were opposed to
continuance of the respondent no.2 as a Chief Executive

¶73

Officer. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore,

¶74

justified in refusing to take cognizance of the
application and refusing further investigation in the
matter by the Police authorities. The respondent no.2 –
Chief Executive Officer is wielding control over the

¶75

affairs of the Zilla Parishad and is the highest executive authority of the local self-Government. It prima facie appears that in order to pressurize the Chief Executive Officer to accept the demands of the employees,

¶76

he is tried to be implicated in the crime. Apart from
this, it cannot be forgotten that the respondent n.2 –

¶77

Chief Executive Officer had expressed such an

¶78

Cr.Appln. 1331/16

¶79

- 8 -

¶80

apprehension few days before lodging of the application
by the applicant. Besides this, the witnesses cited in
the complaint themselves are not supporting her claim.

¶81

9] Considering the affidavit of the investigating officer, we do not deem it necessary to cause interference u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The application / complaint presented by the applicant itself is mala-fide and it has been borne out after the investigation that there is no substance in the complaint. A reasonable inference can be drawn that the applicant is abusing the process of the Court and moving the Police machinery with a view to meet her oblique motive and objectives. While dismissing the instant criminal application, we direct the applicant to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent no.2 within a period of four weeks from today. The criminal

¶82

application is rejected.

¶83

 (K.L. WADANE, J.)

¶84

ndk/ cr251634.doc

Sangita D/O Dhondiba Ingole v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangita D/O Dhondiba Ingole v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haji Akbar Abdul Raheman and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sayed Azahar Sayed Kamroddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Devanand Bhaurao Sanap (C-4196) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chetan Sahebrao Ahire. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other.

Khandesh College Education Society Jalgaon through Its President and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Mohd. Sharif Badshah Shamin Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra