Allowed

Sadashiv Govinda Tayde and Ors. v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC22 Jun 2018APPLN/1917/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application sought quashing of a supplementary charge-sheet filed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Court found insufficient material to establish offences, particularly outrage of modesty or property interference, and quashed the charge-sheet.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the supplementary charge-sheet and order that the case remains in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class.

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

¶1

1 CrAppln 1917 06J

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1917 OF 2006

¶4

1. Sadashiv s/o Govinda Tayde, Age 55 years, Occ. Sarpanch/Agri. & Ex-Director of D.C.C. Bank.

¶5

2. Laxman s/o Sadashiv Tayde, Age 35 years.

¶6

3. Sampat s/o Govind Tayde, Age 45 years.

¶7

4. Deochand s/o Govind Tayde, Age 40 years.

¶8

5. Ishwar s/o Sampat Tayde, Age 28 years.

¶9

6. Deochand s/o Bhika Tayde, Age 52 years.

¶10

7. Fakirchand s/o Bhika Tayde, Age 54 years,

¶11

8. Babu s/o Shamrao Bawaskar, Age 30 years,

¶12

9. Santosh s/o Pandu Tayde, Age 30 years,

¶13

10. Bhika s/o Ranguba Dangode, Age 45 years,

¶14

11. Kailash s/o Vithal Sonwane, Age 30 years,

¶15

12. Manoj s/o Vithal Sonwane, Age 28 years.

¶16

13. Dattu s/o Yadavrao Sonwane, Age 38 years.

¶17

14. Vishnu s/o Sampat Tayade, Age 28 years.

¶18

1/5

¶19

2 CrAppln 1917 06J

¶20

15. Dagadchand s/o Khanderao Tayade, Age 28 years.

¶21

All Occup. Agril. And R/o. Andhari, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶22

 ...Applicants

¶23

(Ori. accused)

¶24

VERSUS

¶25

1. The State of Maharashtra.

¶26

2. Dadarao Kisan Wankhede, Age 30 years, Occ. Contractor R/o. Andhari, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. ... Respondents (Respondent No. 2is

¶27

original informant)

¶28

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Ambar Barlota, h/f
Mr. S.K. Barlota.

¶29

APP for respondent No. 1/State : Mr. S.J. Salgare.

¶30

CORAM:T.V. NALAWADE &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE:22nd June, 2018.

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.)

¶32

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the

¶33

consent of the parties, this application is taken up
for final disposal.

¶34

2.The proceeding filed under section 482 of the

¶35

Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of
supplementary charge-sheet filed by the Investigating

¶36

Agency in the year 2006 in Reg. Criminal Case No.
326/2003 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Sillod. The case is filed for the offenes

¶37

2/5

¶38

3 CrAppln 1917 06J

¶39

punishable under section 325, 452, 427, 323, 504, 506,
143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under
section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. This charge-sheet

¶40

was filed on 20.12.2003. Initially, the crime was
registered for offence punishable under section 3(1)(x)
of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989. To challenge the same, the

¶41

applicants filed Criminal Application No. 988/2003 for
relief of quashing of first information report. The
said proceeding was partly allowed by this Court and
F.I.R. registered for the offence punishable under
section 3(1)(x) of the aforesaid Special Act was
quashed and set aside. This order was made on
13.11.2003. It appears that the investigating officer

¶42

filed supplementary charge-sheet in the year 2006 for
the offences punishable under section 3(1)(v), 3(1)
(xi)of the aforesaid special enactment. With the
supplementarycharge-sheet,thesupplementary

¶43

statements of witnesses are also produced.

¶44

3.Learned counsel for applicants submits that
even if the material is read as it is, the allegations
made in the supplementary statement also do not make
out the newly added offence in the charge-sheet and so

¶45

3/5

¶46

4 CrAppln 1917 06J

¶47

the supplementary charge-sheet needs to be quashed and
set aside.

¶48

4.This Court has carefully gone through the
statements of male person and also the female persons
to ascertain as to whether the offence is described
in aforesaid two provision of the special enactment are

¶49

committed. The allegations show that the accused
persons had forcibly entered into the house of the
witness, who belongs to scheduled castes. Some
household articles were damaged and assault was made,
both on female and male persons. However, no lady
member has made allegation that there was dishonour or
outrage of modesty. Thus material, as it is, does not

¶50

show that there was outrage of modesty or attempt was
made to interfere in the possession of the witness over
the immovable property. The intention also was not of

¶51

that sort as per the allegations made in the
supplementary statement.

¶52

5.At present the case is pending in the Court of

¶53

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sillod, and if the
supplementary charge-sheet is considered, the case will
go to Special Court. There is virtually no material to
make out aforesaid offences or any other offence from
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

¶54

4/5

¶55

5 CrAppln 1917 06J

¶56

of Atrocities) Act. For that also this Court has
carefully gone through the material and also the
provisions of the aforesaid Act. It can be said that

¶57

only to create seriousness in the matter such an

¶58

attempt is made. It is surprising that even when this
Court had quashed and set aside the offence registered
undertheaforesaidspecialenactment,the

¶59

investigating officer showed a courage to file
supplementary charge-sheet for the aforesaid offences
when those offences are not made out by the allegations

¶60

made by the witnesses. This Court holds that the
relief needs to be given. In the result, following
order is passed.

¶61

ORDER

¶62

1The application is allowed.
2Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause
'C'.

¶63

7. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

¶64

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)

¶65

mkd

¶66

5/5

Sadashiv Govinda Tayde and Ors. v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadashiv Govinda Tayde and Ors. v. the State of Mah

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

Vijay Baburao Pingle and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Najir Shaikh Umar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hanumant S/O. Sakharam Waghmode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prashant S/O. Namdeo Wagh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Balu S/O. Arjun Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Parasram S/O. Lalsing Rathod and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.