Allowed

Shivaji Tulshiram Jinkalwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC23 Mar 2023APPLN/120/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad allowed Criminal Application No.118 of 2022 and quashed proceedings against the second applicant. The court dismissed the first applicant’s application as withdrawn, noting insufficient common intention allegations against the second applicant for charges involving the first.

What did the court decide?

Crime No.251 of 2021 is quashed and set aside to the extent of accused No.2 Vasudeo s/o Mahadeo Kale.

Shivaji Tulshiram Jinkalwad Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

{1} CRI APPLN 120 OF 2022 & ANR

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

983 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.120 OF 2022

¶4

Shivaji s/o Tulshiram Jinkalwad ..Applicant (Accused No.1)

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and Another ..Respondents

¶7

(Resp. No.2 Ori. Informant)

¶8

WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.118 OF 2022

¶9

Vasudeo s/o Mahadeo Kale

..Applicant

(Accused No.2)

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Another ..Respondents (Resp. No.2 Orig. Informant)

¶14

Advocate for Applicant : Mr.Santosh B. Bhosle APP for Respondent No.1 : Mr.S.J.Salgare Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Mahesh P. Kale

¶15

...

¶16

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &

¶17

M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.

¶18

DATE : 23 March 2023

¶19

ORDER ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :-

¶20

. When we express our disinclination to grant any relief to the applicant in Criminal Application No.120 of 2022 on merits, the learned Advocate for the applicant, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the said application.

¶21

{2} CRI APPLN 120 OF 2022 & ANR

¶22

We have heard Criminal Application No.118 of 2022 of accused No.2 with aforesaid Criminal Application No.120 of 2022 of accused No.1. This accused No.2 is seeking quashment of the Crime No.251 of 2021 registered with Dindrud Police Station, Dist.Beed, for the ofence punishable under Sections 354, 354-A, 509, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The applicants in both these applications have been serving as Head Master and Teacher respectively and are colleagues of respondent No.2, who also happens to be Teacher in the same School. She lodged the FIR in December 2021 inter alia putting up several allegations against the Head Master regarding harassment mated out to her with which we are not concerned, now that he has sought to withdraw his application.

¶24

As far as role attributed to another applicant, who happens to be accused No.2 in the charge-sheet, the only allegation that can be found is in respect of the incident dated 08-09-2021 wherein she alleges about he having started singing couple of songs from Hindi feature flms, which according to the learned APP and learned Advocate for respondent No.2 is sufcient to make out the ofence punishable under Section 354-A(1)(iv) which speaks about making sexually coloured remarks to cause harassment.

¶25

{3} CRI APPLN 120 OF 2022 & ANR

¶26

It is necessary to note that, respondent No.2 has lodged the FIR in December 2021 roping in both these accused simultaneously. Even charge-sheet has been fled without expressly mentioning as to which of the ofences for which each of them is being implicated. The charge-sheet reads as if all these incidents have taken place by sharing common intention and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been sought to be invoked.

¶27

As far as the allegations against applicant Head Master at several places, there is no reference to either presence of the applicant accused No.2 much less to demonstrate that he was sharing common intention while the Head Master - accused No.1 was indulging in the ofences as alleged therein.

¶28

As far as the episode dated 08-09-2021, respondent No.2 alleges and it was the applicant accused No.2, who alone was present and was singing those songs by looking at her. Conspicuously, he does not allege that even the Head Master was present then and there. We are pointing out these facts just to demonstrate as to how, oblivious of the provisions of Indian Penal Code are applied ignoring the exact allegations attributable to each of these two accused and Section 34 of the Indian Penal

¶29

{4} CRI APPLN 120 OF 2022 & ANR

¶30

Code is being invoked just to show sharing of common intention though, diferent episodes qua accused No.1 and accused No.2 are being alleged.

¶31

Be that as it may, as far as the applicant accused No.2 is concerned, on the basis of the only incident of singing songs by looking at respondent No.2, which songs are the songs of Hindi feature flms, it is being alleged that he has sexually harassed her. Pertinently, respondent No.2 has not alleged anything else much less to demonstrate his attitude and behaviour while he was singing the songs which could be sufcient to demonstrate that he was murmuring the songs with a view to sexually harass her as is defned in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶32

Besides, though the episode has occurred on 08-09-2021, applicant accused No.2 has been sought to be implicated by lodging the FIR in December 2021, when apparently there has been a bad blood between the Head Master and respondent No.2 regarding which there is enough material to show that both of them were casting several allegations against each other with the School Committee and the Ofcers of the Education Department.

¶33

{5} CRI APPLN 120 OF 2022 & ANR

¶34

Be that as it may, according to us, the ingredients for constituting ofence under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be made out against applicant Vasudeo Mahadeo Kale and as far as the other ofences are concerned, there are not even allegations that accused No.1 committed those ofences by sharing any common intention with him or that he was present when accused No.1 was molesting respondent No.2.

¶35

Criminal Application No.120 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶36

Criminal Application No.118 of 2022 is allowed. Crime No.251 of 2021 registered with Dindrud Police Station, Dist.Beed, for the ofence punishable under Sections 354, 354-A, 509, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to the extent of accused No.2 Vasudeo s/o Mahadeo Kale is quashed and set aside.

¶37

( M.M. SATHAYE ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶38

SPT

Shivaji Tulshiram Jinkalwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaji Tulshiram Jinkalwad 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

Deepak Hukumchand Duggad and Another Vs Shri Sthanakwasi Jain Sangh Shrirampur through President and Others

Jamil Abbass Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Suraj Narayanrao Kanchi and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Matoshri Jijamay Sevabhavi Sanstha through Its President and Members Rahul Govardhan Nagargoje Vs Ravindra Chavan Cabinet Minister Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection

Vasudeo Mahadeo Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Namrata Dagdu Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra