Urmila Sanjay Powale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

( 1 ) crap416.21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.416 OF 2021

1.Urmila Sanjay Powale..Appellants
Age. 43 years, Occ. Household,[original
R/o. Paru Parasnath Camp,accused]
Caves Road, Jogeshwari (East),
Mumbai.
2.Sanjay Upandra Powale
Age.52 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. As above.
Versus
1.The State of Maharashtra..Respondents
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station, Mantha, Dist. Jalna.
2,Kavita Vithalrao Pradhan,
Age. 31 years, Occ.Advocate,
R/o. Sugandha Nagar,
Mantha, Dist. Jalna.

¶5

Mr.Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.R.B. Bagul, APP for the respondent/State.
Mr.R.O. Awasarmol, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶6

CORAM : SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.
DATED :27.09.2021

¶7

PC :-

¶8

01.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order
passed by the Sessions Judge in Criminal M.A. (Bail)
No.856 of 2021, present appeal is preferred. It is
stated that the appellants have been prosecuted for the

¶9

charges under section 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and under sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act. The appellants had preferred application
for pre-arrest bail, which came to be rejected. Hence,
said order is impugned in this appeal.

¶10

02.One Kavita Pradhan lodged FIR against the
appellants on 24.07.2021, wherein it was alleged that the
appellant had given instructions to respondent No.2 to
file civil proceeding. Similarly, appellant No.1 had
paid fee to respondent No.2. Thereafter, appellant No.1
changed her lawyer and demanded refund of fee from
respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 agreed to refund the
fee. On 23.07.2021 the appellants demanded money from
respondent No.2. Over this respondent No.2 asked the
appellants to wait for sometime. But appellants abused
respondent No.2 on her caste and also threatened that
they would lodge complaint to Bar Council and cancel her
sanad.

¶11

03.On the basis of above allegations, learned
Counsel for appellants submits that respondent No.2 has
not given complete history of the incident. He submits
that appellant No.1 had instructed respondent No.2 to
file proceeding on her behalf, which she did not file.

¶12

( 3 ) crap416.21

¶13

Therefore, appellant No.1 changed her lawyer and demanded
amount of fee from respondent No.2. Initially, she agreed
to return the amount. Thereafter, on insistence, she
issued cheque, which was dishonoured. As per the
appellants, the respondent No.2 in order to avoid
payment, filed false complaint. He also submits that
respondent No.2 is in habit of filing complaint against
his clients and others to avoid financial liability. It
is contended that the Trial Court has not considered the
allegations made in the FIR coupled with conduct of
respondent No.2. Therefore, he submits that appellants
be released on bail.

¶14

04.On the other hand, learned APP submits that the
incident had taken place in the Court premises. It is a
public place. The incident was witnessed by many persons.
The abuses were hurled in public view also. Therefore,
prima facie, offence is made out against the appellants.
The Trial Court has rightly considered the facts of the
case properly and rejected the application. There is no
need to interfere with the order of the Trial Court.

¶15

05.Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned
APP for respondent/State and learned Counsel for
respondent No.2.

¶16

( 4 ) crap416.21

¶17

06.Admittedly, appellant No.1 had engaged
respondent No.2 for instituting civil proceeding. She
had paid fees to respondent No.2. Thereafter, appellant
No.1 changed her lawyer. Respondent No.2 had agreed to
repay fee taken by her. It also appears that she had
issued cheque of Rs.15,000/- in favour of appellant No.1,
which was dishonoured on 12.07.2021. It also appears
that appellant No.1 had lodged NC complaint against
respondent No.2 on 07.07.2021. Thereafter, alleged
incident had taken place in the Court premises. It
appears that appellant No.1 had demanded amount, but it
appears that respondent No.2 did not return fees to
appellant No.1.

¶18

07.The learned Counsel for the appellants has also
produced on record copy of complaint dated 19.03.2021,
filed by respondent No.2 against one Sarikabai, wherein
it is alleged that said Sarikabai had threatening
respondent No.2. On going through the complaint, it
appears that dispute between respondent No.2 and
Sarikabai pertains to a Court case.

¶19

08.Learned counsel for the appellants also produced
on record copy of complaint given by Sarika against
respondent No.2, wherein said Sarikabai had made serious
allegations against respondent No.2. Learned Counsel for

¶20

( 5 ) crap416.21

¶21

the appellants has also produced on record copy of FIR
lodged by respondent No.2 against Bharat Kadam under
section 354, 354-A, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
On the basis of said FIR, charge was framed against said
Kadam, wherein it appears that respondent No.2 has not
supported her own case and she was declared hostile and
the prosecution has taken her cross-examination. On
considering the evidence, the Trial Court has acquitted
the accused therein.

¶22

09. On the basis of above litigation, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that respondent No.2 is in habit of filing complaints. He also submits that the appellant No.1 demanded her amount from respondent No.2. The cheque issued by respondent No.2 was dishonoured on 12.07.2021. Therefore, on the date of hearing, she demanded money from respondent No.2. It appears that appellants and respondent No.2 are having financial dispute. The said facts are not mentioned in the FIR. It appears that in order to make out case under the Atrocities Act, respondent No.2 had alleged that appellant No.1 abused her that “ R;kr rq [kkyP;k tkrhph egkjkph vlY;kewGs rqyk frdMs xkokdMs rq>k uojk ?ksowu tkr ukgh- rq ,o<h fup tkrhph vlf’ky vkf.k vl.kkj ”. Appellant No.1 had engaged services of respondent No.2 for filing civil litigation, which was not filed. She refused to pay the amount.

¶23

( 6 ) crap416.21

¶24

Therefore, there is dispute between the appellant and
respondent No.2. It appears that said dispute has been
given colour of castiest allegations. On going through
the contents of FIR and the documents produced on record
regarding litigations filed by respondent No.2 against
Sarikabai and Bharat Kadam, prima facie it appears that
respondent No.2 has taken dis-advantage of her caste and
filed complaint against the appellant. It appears that
to avoid repayment of fees to appellants, the FIR came to
be filed. Therefore, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest
protection to the appellants. Similarly, there are no
allegations against appellant No.2 that he hurled abuses
to respondent No.2. So, I pass following order :-

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

(i)The application is allowed.

¶27

(ii)In the event of arrest of the
appellants in connection with Crime No.229 of
2021 registered at Mantha Police Station, Dist.
Jalna, for the offences punishable under section
504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under
section 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, the appellants are directed to

¶28

be released on bail on executing PR & SB in the
sum of Rs.15,000/- [Rupees Fifteen Thousand]
each, with one or more sureties in the like
amount.

¶29

(iii)The appellants are directed to attend
the concerned police station everyday between
11.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. from 29.09.2021 to
17.10.2021. The appellants are directed not to
tamper with the prosecution witnesses, in any
manner, whatsoever.

¶30

[SURENDRA P. TAVADE,J.]

¶31

snk/2021/SEP21/crap416.21

Urmila Sanjay Powale and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila Sanjay Powale and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Parag S/O. Manohar Jamkhedkar Vs Dipti W/O. Parag Jamkhedkar and Anr.

Navnath Maruti Sawant and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Samadhan S/O Rajaram Mali and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Satyawan Vitthal Khandekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajesh Nagnath Waghmode Vs the State of Maharashtra

Asif S/O. Jakir Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another