Dismissed

Chagan Bapu Kharat v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Sept 2023WP/1541/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the criminal writ petition filed for issuing process against accused persons for offences under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The Court held that the petitioner, the original complainant, did not witness the alleged incidents and his verification statement did not attract the provisions of the Act.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition and pending applications were dismissed.

Chagan Bapu Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Chitra Sonawane. 902-WP-1541-2014.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1541 OF 2014

¶4

A/W

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.474 OF 2021

¶6

IN

¶7

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1541 OF 2014

¶8

A/W

¶9

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.31 OF 2018

¶10

IN

¶11

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1541 OF 2014

¶12

Digitally signed by CHITRA Chagan Bapu Kharat ... Petitioner. CHITRASANJAY SANJAYSONAWANE Vs. SONAWANE Date:2023.09.12 20:04:35 +0530 State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents.

¶13

Ms Yogini A. Ugale, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr HJ Dedhia, APP for State.

¶14

Mr Rahul S. Kate for Respondents No.2, 5 to 10, 12 to 18,
20 to 26, 28, 31 to 34, 38 to 40, 43 to 48.

¶15

 Coram : R.N.Laddha, J.
 Date : 12 September 2023.
....

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

Heard Ms Yogini A. Ugale, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner; Mr H.J.Dedhia, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State, and Mr Rahul S. Kate, the learned
Counsel for respondents no.2, 5 to 10, 12 to 18, 20 to 26, 28, 31
to 34, 38 to 40, 43 to 48.

¶18

Page No. 1 of 4 ____________________________________________ 12 September 2023.

¶19

Chitra Sonawane. 902-WP-1541-2014.doc

¶20

2.This petition is filed against the judgment and order dated
1.3.2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, in
Criminal Revision Application No.85 of 2011, confirming the
order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in RCC No.
41 of 2011, whereby the learned Magistrate refused to issue
process against the accused under Sections 3(1) (x) of the
Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act
(for short ‘the Act’), and 351, 378, 383, 384, 323, 504, 506, 410,
441 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The learned
Magistrate, however, issued a process against accused no.1 for the
offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 (2) IPC.

¶21

3.The petitioner, Chagan Bapu Kharat, who is a member of a
Scheduled Caste, owns agricultural land in Kambaleshwar. On his
land, he has planted a variety of trees. The second respondent, a
Sarpanch of village Kambaleshwar, allegedly used his undue
influence to threaten the petitioner and 46 other respondents.
They reportedly cut down all the trees and excavated soil from the
land using a JCB machine for his greenhouse. They also developed
the land and constructed a twenty-foot road through it.
Additionally, they are accused of destroying an electric motor on
the borewell located on the land and damaging the pipeline
without the petitioner’s permission. On 10.5.2010, the petitioner
reportedly made a mobile call to the accused, Namdev Mahadeo
Tambe, at his cell number. However, the accused, Namdev, abused

¶22

Page No. 2 of 4

¶23

12 September 2023.

¶24

Chitra Sonawane. 902-WP-1541-2014.doc

¶25

him on his Caste.

¶26

4.In the present case, the verification statement of the
petitioner, the original complainant, does not attract the
provisions of Sections 3(1)(x) of the Act. From the material placed
on record, it is clear that the petitioner had not witnessed the
alleged incident of cutting trees, damaging the pipeline and
borewell. Though the witness, Shivaji Kharat, claimed that he saw
respondents on the spot, the same is not the case of the petitioner.

¶27

5.By a catena of decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled
that issuing a process on a private complaint is a serious matter,
and the law provides a safeguard in the form of examination of
the complainant under oath as per Section 200 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The purpose of this is to ascertain the truth
by questioning the complainant under oath.

¶28

6.On perusal of the material placed on record, and more
particularly, the averments in the verification statement of the
petitioner/original complainant, no case is made out for
interference.

¶29

7.For the forgoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition.
The petition stands dismissed accordingly.

¶30

____________________________________________ 12 September 2023.

¶31

Chitra Sonawane.

¶32

902-WP-1541-2014.doc

¶33

8. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the pending applications stand disposed of.

¶34

 [R.N.Laddha, J.]

¶35

Page No. 4 of 4

¶36

12 September 2023.

Chagan Bapu Kharat v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chagan Bapu Kharat v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Freudenberg Filtration Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Snehal Ac and R Engg. Pvt. Ltd.and Ors.

T. S Natrajan Vs State of Maharashtra

Amar Ranu Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pesi Shavak Patel and Anr. Vs Rita Chandermohan Agarwal Thr Poa Holder Dhruv Chandermohan Agarwal and Anr.

Suresh Maganlal Mehta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chagan Bapu Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.