Court rejected the petition seeking quashing of an FIR citing IPC and SC/ST (PoA) Act offences. The Bench held that prima facie the FIR disclosed cognizable offences requiring investigation and refused to quash based on a pending civil land dispute.
Petition for quashing of FIR bearing No.105 of 2021 stood rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2021.08.21 15:44:30 +0530
cri.wp-2671.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2671 OF 2021
Manmohan Gopiram Agarwal ]
Age : 54 years, occ : Real Estate ]
R/o. F-1/6/3, Gyandeep Society,]
Sector – 4, Vashi, Navi Mumbai.]….. Petitioner/Accused
versus
1]The State of Maharashtra ]
(At the instance of Karjat Police ]
Statiion, Raigad)]
]
2]Mr. Namdeo Kalu Pingala ]
Age : 52 years, Occ : Farmer ]
R/o House No.414, Sugave, ]
Pingalewadi, Karjat, Raigad.]….. Respondents.
Mr. Dadichi Mhaispurkar a/w Mr. Sajal Yadav, Mr. S K Saxena, Mr. Harsh
Gangurde, Mr. Raj Raut i/by Mr. Mitul Shah for the Petitioner.
Smt. A S Pai, PP for the Respondent/State.
Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud a/w Mr. Idris M Vohra & Mr. Vinod Shinde i/by Legal
Affairs for the Respondent No.2.
CORAM :S. S. SHINDE,
N. J. JAMADAR, JJ
DATE :05th August 2021
JUDGMENT : (PER S. S. SHINDE, J.)
1Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent
of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
1 of 7
lgc
cri.wp-2671.21.odt
2This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioners for the
following substantial relief :-
(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR bearing No.105 of 2021, dated 01.05.2021 registered with Karjat Police Station, Raigad, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sectuion 3(1) (r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with consequential reliefs.”3The facts giving rise to filing of this Writ Petition can be, stated in
brief, as under :-
It is the case of the Petitioner that the land bearing Survey
No.37/6 situated at village Sugave is in the name of the 2nd Respondent and his
sisters. Respondent No.2 is belonging to the Tribal Thakur Community/Thakur
Tribe. In the year 2013, the Petitioner decided to purchase 2 acres of land from
the 2nd Respondent. It is further the case of the Petitioner that in between
2013 and 2016 few payments were made by the Petitioner to Respondent No.2.
In 2016 the affidavits of the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 were prepared.
According to the Petitioner, the agreement for sale dated 19/05/2016 was
entered into between the parties. It is further the case of the Petitioner that,
the Petitioner repeatedly requested the 2nd Respondent to complete all the
formalities for transfer of the said land, however, the 2nd Respondent refused to
2 of 7
lgc
cri.wp-2671.21.odt
do so despite taking the advance amount, and therefore, the Petitioner filed a
complaint against the Respondent No.2 in respect of the said fraud committed
by the Respondent No.2 at the Sanpada Police Station.
4It is the allegation of the Petitioner that on 21/04/2021 when the
Petitioner came at village Sugave, at that time, the 2nd Respondent inquired
with the Petitioner about the remaining amount payable by the Petitioner to
the 2nd Respondent in respect of purchase of his 2 acres of land. It is further
alleged that at that time the Petitioner made casteist remarks, abused the 2nd
Respondent and threatened him with motivated police action. It is alleged that
after 6 days of the aforesaid alleged commission of offence, the 2nd Respondent
has filed a complaint against the Petitioner at Karjat Police Station which
culminated into the impugned FIR dated 01/05/2021.
5Thereafter on 10/05/2021 the Petitioner was called for
interrogation by the police . The statement of the Petitioner was recorded by
the police. The Petitioner has also made a representation to the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Alibag, Dist. Raigad.
6The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that at
the time of commission of the alleged offence registered against the Petitioner,
he was not present on the spot of incident, and the impugned FIR is false. It is
3 of 7
lgc
cri.wp-2671.21.odt
also submitted that the the impugned FIR, which is registered at the behest of
the 2nd Respondent with an ulterior motive against the Petitioner, is arising out
of a purported land deal between the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent. It is
further submitted that the Petitioner is cooperating in investigation and his
statement was recorded. It is submitted that the impugned FIR is nothing but
an attempt of Respondent No.2 in connivance with others to illegally forfeit the
advance received from the Petitioner. It is submitted that there is a long
pending financial dispute between the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent since
2013 and the impugned FIR is filed only after the Petitioner has filed
complaint with the Sanpada Police Station concerning the above dispute. The
learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is innocent and
has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He, therefore, submitted
that the impugned FIR registered at the behest of the 2nd Respondent against
the Petitioner for the offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act may be quashed and
set aside.
7The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent submitted
that the 2nd Respondent No.2 is a poor farmer, and the Petitioner did not give
the amount as decided and mentioned in the agreement. It is submitted that at
the time of alleged offence, when the Respondent No.2 asked the Petitioner
about the balance amount, the Petitioner abused the 2nd Respondent upon his
4 of 7
lgc
cri.wp-2671.21.odt
caste and threatened him that crime shall be registered against them and they
will be sent to jail. It is also alleged the in the presence of three persons the
Petitioner used foul language, threatened and hurled casteist abuses at the 2nd
Respondent. It is submitted that the offence committed by the Petitioner is
serious in nature. It is therefore prayed that the Petition may be dismissed.
8The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent/State
has supported the Respondent No.2-Original Complainant. She further submits
that though it appears that the impugned FIR is the outcome of the land
transaction, the investigation is not yet complete and the custody of the
Petitioner will be required for further interrogation during the investigation.
She therefore prays that the Petition may be dismissed.
9With the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we
have perused the pleadings and grounds taken in the writ petition with
annexures thereto. We have also perused the impugned FIR and other material
placed on record.
10 While considering the prayer for quashing the FIR, the Court
exercising the writ jurisdiction and inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Cr.PC, has to confine itself to the allegations made in the FIR and, to find out
whether alleged offences are disclosed or not, however, without entering into
5 of 7
lgc
cri.wp-2671.21.odt
the truthfulness or falsity of the said allegations. At this stage neither the
truthfulness of the allegations nor the defence of the accused can be considered
11Upon perusal of the pleadings in the Petition, it appears that there
is a civil dispute pending between the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent.
However, upon careful perusal of the allegations in the FIR, prima facie, the
alleged offences are disclosed and need further investigation. The allegations
in the FIR disclosed the offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. If the allegations in the FIR are taken on
their face value and read in their entirety, the ingredients of the alleged
offences are attracted and, consequently, the alleged offences are disclosed.
12At this stage, when there is a prayer for quashing the FIR, it may
not be desirable to elaborate the reasons since the investigation is in progress.
Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there is a
long pending civil dispute between the parties. Nevertheless, there are
allegations in the impugned FIR that the Petitioner made castiest remarks,
abused and threatened the 2nd Respondent. The defence of the Petitioner can
be considered only during trial.
13For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, there is no
merit in the Petition and the same stands rejected.
6 of 7
lgc
cri.wp-2671.21.odt
14Needless to state that the observations made herein above are
prima facie in nature and are confined to the adjudication of the present Writ
Petition, and the rejection of this Petition shall not be construed as an
impediment to avail of an appropriate remedy as is available in law by the
Petitioner in the event of filing of the charge-sheet by the concerned
Investigating Officer.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J]
7 of 7
lgc
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR disclosing offences disclosed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act be quashed on account of a pending civil dispute.
Whether the allegations of casteist remarks and abuse in the FIR warrant mandatory investigation under Section 482 Cr.PC.
Whether the existence of a financial dispute precludes the Court from exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR at the threshold.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Manmohan Gopiram Agarwal
The State of Maharashtra
Mr. Namdeo Kalu Pingala
S. S. SHINDE
N. J. JAMADAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court