Case Note & Summary
The Criminal Application No. 6544 of 2016 was filed before the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, by nine applicants belonging to the Kothale family, residents of village Kothala, seeking quashing of First Information Report No. 3034/2016 dated 17.06.2016 registered at Bhokardhan Police Station for offences under Sections 3(1)(F), (G), (A), (D), (Q), (R), (S), (U), (V), (Z) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by Special Judge-1, Jalna, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 115/2016 directing registration of the crime and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The dispute arose from ongoing civil litigation between the applicants and the relatives of respondent no. 2, the original complainant. A civil suit was pending where an injunction had been granted in favour of applicant nos. 1 and 3, restraining the complainant's relatives from interfering with the applicants' possession of certain agricultural land. Respondent no. 2's group had also filed proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), which resulted in an order in their favour; however, that order was challenged by applicant no. 3 before the High Court, which issued rule and stayed it. The applicants contended that respondent no. 2 and his relatives, who belong to a Scheduled Caste community, were misusing their caste to file false complaints under the Atrocities Act due to the pending civil dispute. They further submitted that despite the civil court's injunction, respondent no. 2's relatives interfered with their possession, assaulted a police constable, and stole crops, leading to two separate FIRs being registered against them. It was argued that the alleged incident dated 25.09.2016, in which the applicants were accused of abusing the complainant by caste in filthy language and committing other atrocities, never occurred. Even if it had, the allegations were general and did not attribute specific overt acts to each applicant, including female and young family members who were not parties to the civil suit. Critically, the alleged incident did not take place in public view, an essential ingredient under the Act. The applicants maintained that registration of the FIR and the direction for investigation were illegal, perverse, and constituted abuse of process of law. The State, through the Assistant Public Prosecutor, submitted that investigation revealed no independent witnesses supporting the incident; neighbours, the Sarpanch, and the President of Tanta Mukti confirmed no such event occurred, and actual physical possession of the land remained with the applicants since 1981. Respondent no. 2, however, argued that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences requiring investigation, that sufficient material had been collected during investigation, and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in HDFC Securities Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra to contend that a direction for investigation does not cause irreparable injury and should not be quashed at a premature stage. He also asserted that the land was originally allotted to his family as ‘Mahar Inam Hodola’ and that the applicants had fabricated documents to change mutation entries. The High Court reserved its judgment on 11.04.2017 and pronounced it on 20.04.2017, but the operative portion is not available in the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR No. 3034/2016 and the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the Special Judge directing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on grounds of no offence disclosed, civil dispute, abuse of process, and lack of public view as required under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (04) 58
Criminal Application No. 6544 of 2016
S.S. Shinde, K.K. Sonawane
Mr. Vinod Patil, Ms. P.V. Diggikar, Mr. P.V. Balkhande
Bandu Ananda Kothale, Tahabai Bandu Kothale, Madhavrao Bandu Kothale, Kamal Madhavrao Kothale, Sudhakar Bandu Kothale, Kasabai Sudhakar Kothale, Dattu Bandu Kothale, Sonali Dattu Kothale, Narayan Mahadu Kothale
The State of Maharashtra, Through Sub-Divisional Police Officer Bhokardhan, and Ganesh Sukhlal Suradkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of First Information Report and order directing investigation under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of FIR No. 3034/2016 dated 17.06.2016 registered at Bhokardhan Police Station for offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and quashing of the order dated 15.11.2016 passed by Special Judge-1, Jalna in Criminal Misc. Application No. 115/2016 directing registration of crime and investigation.
Filing Reason
The applicants alleged that the FIR was falsely registered due to a pending civil dispute over land; no offence occurred, and the provisions of the Atrocities Act were misused as the alleged incident did not take place in public view and the allegations were general and motivated.
Previous Decisions
Civil Court granted an injunction in favour of applicant nos. 1 and 3 restraining the complainant's relatives from interfering with possession; Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) passed an order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in favour of respondent no. 2's group, which was stayed by the High Court; the impugned order of the Special Judge directed registration and investigation.
Issues
Whether the FIR and the order directing investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, disclose offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, particularly in the absence of any incident occurring in public view.
Whether the criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process of law given the background of a civil dispute and the absence of specific overt acts attributed to each applicant.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicants contended that the FIR was outcome of a civil land dispute; the civil court had already granted injunction in their favour; respondent no. 2 and relatives were aggressors who entered their property; no incident as alleged occurred, and even if it did, it did not happen in public view; the allegations were general and did not mention specific roles of each applicant; female and young family members were roped in; the order of the Special Judge was passed without reasons; the FIR and investigation were abuse of process.
The State submitted that investigation revealed no independent witness supporting the complainant; neighbours and village officials said no such incident took place; land was in possession of applicants since 1981; civil court injunction existed in their favour.
Respondent no. 2 argued that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences requiring investigation; material collected during investigation was sufficient for trial; reliance was placed on HDFC Securities Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra to argue that direction for investigation should not be quashed at a premature stage; the land originally belonged to the complainant's family and mutation entries were fabricated by applicants.
Procedural History
A civil suit was pending between the parties regarding land, with an injunction granted in favour of applicant nos. 1 and 3. Respondent no. 2's relatives initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. before the Sub-Divisional Officer, who passed an order in their favour, but the High Court stayed that order. Meanwhile, two FIRs were registered against respondent no. 2's relatives for assault and theft. On 17.06.2016, FIR No. 3034/2016 was registered against the applicants at Bhokardhan Police Station under the Atrocities Act. Respondent no. 2 then filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 115/2016 before the Special Judge, Jalna, who on 15.11.2016 directed registration of crime and investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The applicants then filed the present Criminal Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on an unspecified date.
Acts & Sections
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: 3(1)(F), 3(1)(G), 3(1)(A), 3(1)(D), 3(1)(Q), 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(1)(U), 3(1)(V), 3(1)(Z)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 156(3), 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 379, 34
