Dismissed

Sadashiv Ambadas Gayake v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jul 2018APPLN/1112/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal application seeking quashing of an F.I.R. under SC/ST Act and PCRA, holding that available material supported investigation and interim relief had stalled proceedings without proving a false FIR.

What did the court decide?

The application for quashing of F.I.R. was dismissed; interim relief granted on 26-6-2008 was vacated; rule discharged.

Sadashiv Ambadas Gayake Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 Application 1112 of 2008

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Application No.1112 of 2008

¶4

Sadashiv S/o Ambadas Gayake, Age 63 years, Occupation : Agriculture and Social Service, R/o Mhada Colony, Near Shani Temple, Aurangabad. .. Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra Through in-charge Police Station, Kannad, Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad. 2) Dayanand s/o Dagaduji Bankar, Age 57 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o Ritthi, Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad. .. Respondents.

¶7

Shri. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate, for Applicant.

¶8

Mrs. D.S. Jape, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.1.

¶9

Shri. Anand Kulkarni, Advocate, holding for Shri. R.S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶10

Coram: T.V. NALAWADE & K.L. WADANE, JJ.

¶11

Date: 16 JULY 2018

¶12

2 Application 1112 of 2008

¶13

JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.):

¶14

The proceeding is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the relief of quashing of F.I.R. No.II-9/2008 registered with Kannad Police Station, District Aurangabad for offences punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. Both the sides are heard.

¶15

The crime was registered on the basis of report given by respondent No.2 – Dayanand. The report was given in respect of incident dated 28-1-2008. Prior to that date, the first informant had filed a case against the present applicant and he was present in Kannad Court in connection with that case on 28-1-2008. It is his contention that when he was coming out of the court campus in the noon time, present applicant intercepted him near the statue of Tilak and gave abuses to him by taking the name of his caste which is a scheduled caste. Allegations are made that present applicant rushed at the

¶16

3 Application 1112 of 2008

¶17

first informant and assaulted him and then the persons like Laxman Naik Sarpanch and others intervened to settle the dispute. The F.I.R. came to be given on the next day.

¶18

It was submitted for the applicant that on 3010-2006 the applicant had given a representation to the Police Inspector, Kannad and he had expressed apprehension that the first informant may file a false case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against him due to the dispute which was there between the applicant and the first informant. Copy of the said report is produced. Such representation cannot be considered at this stage. Papers of investigation show that many persons had witnessed the incident. Though some persons said that they had not witnessed the incident, it will be open to the investigating officer to form opinion after collecting entire material as subjective satisfaction of the investigating officer is involved for filing final report. It can be said that there is material of aforesaid nature and the respondents have opposed the present application. It can be said due to

¶19

4 Application 1112 of 2008

¶20

interim relief granted by this Court on 26-6-2008, further steps are not taken. Thus it cannot be said that false F.I.R. was given by respondent No.2 against present applicant. Copy of private complaint which was filed by the first informant in the past, bearing S.C.C. No.798 of 2006 is also produced on the record. In the result, the proceeding is dismissed. Interim relief is vacated. Rule is discharged.

¶21

Sd/- Sd/- (K.L. WADANE, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)

¶22

rsl

Sadashiv Ambadas Gayake v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadashiv Ambadas Gayake 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Trimbak Raybhan Madage Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Shantaram Dayaram Patil Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Kiran Bhimrao Waghmare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Vithal Kutwal and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Laxmikant Krushnarao Kulkarni and Ors. Vs Sanjeev Babanrao Bhor and Ors.

Tulshiram Raghunath Navale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.