Bombay High Court
Afshamaskar Laikkhan Pathan @ Afsha … vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 14 January, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:1021-DB
(1)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4113 OF 2022
1. Afshamaskar Laikhkan Pathan,
@ Afsha Firdos Ujede,
Age : 32 Years, Occ. Doctor,
2. Firdos Gulabsab Ujede,
Age : 36 Years, Occ. Doctor
3. Samikhan Khayyumkhan Pathan,
Age : 36 Years, Occ. Doctor
4. Mukid Abdul Hamid Inamdar
Age : 29 Years, Occ. Business
5. Merajkhan Quyyamkhan Pathan,
Age : 44 Years, Occ. Doctor
6. Shahin Laikhkhan Pathan,
Age : 49 Years, Occ. Household (Deleted as per order
dated 12.04.2023)
7. Dr. Khayyumkhan Mohammadkhan Pathan,
Age : 70 Years, Occ. Medical Practitioner,
All R/o. Near Agresan Bhavan, Zinganappa Galli,
Latur
8. Irfan Harun Inamdar ( Shaikh)
Age : 40 Years, Occ. Business,
9. Abdul Hamid Allabaksha Inamdar,
Age : 50 Years, Occ. Agriculture,
Both R/o. Teli Galli, Latur .. Applicants
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. X.Y.Z. .. Respondents
(2)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
...
Advocate for the Applicants : Mr. Rohit Patwardhan h/f
Mr. S. S. Jadhav
A.P.P for Respondent No.1/State : Mr. A.D. Wange
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Harshal P. Randhir
....
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ
Reserved on : 12.12.2024
Pronounced on : 14.01.2025
JUDGMENT ( PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J):
–
1. The applicants, in the present matter, are arrayed as
accused in First Information Report No. 0309 of 2022
registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, District Latur on
12.07.2022 for the offences punishable under sections 376,
376(2) (n), 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of
the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989. (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC‘ and
‘Atrocities’ Act, respectively, for the sake of brevity).
2. The principal accused in the matter is one Arafat
Laikhkan Pathan against whom allegations in relation to
Section 376 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC are leveled. The present
applicants are relatives of accused No.1 Arafat. The allegations
against them are pertaining to Section 323, 504 and 506 of the
IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities
(3)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
Act.
3. Respondent No.2 is the informant. She has alleged that
she was running a garment shop in shop No. A-6 which was
taken on rent from applicant No.7 (Dr. Khayyum Pathan). The
adjoining shop was being run by accused No.1. She claims
that over a period of time, she developed a relationship and
bonding with accused No.1, who had promised to marry her
and upon such promise had established physical relations
with her and had repeated encounters of sexual intercourse
with her, although, she opposed the same. She claims that
she had also converted to Muslim religion in order to marry
accused No.1. (She has qualified this statement in her
supplementary statement saying that she intended to convert
after marriage, however, all formalities were not completed).
She then claims that accused No.1 got engaged with another
lady and was about to marry her. She claims that on account
of engagement of accused No.1 with another girl, there was
discord in between her and accused No.1.
4. Accused No.1 is not a party to the present proceeding.
The above history which is narrated in the First Information
Report is quoted just to give a broad over view of the statement
of the facts giving rise to the allegations made in the First
(4)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
Information Report against the present applicants.
5. Respondent No.2 has claimed that on 01.07.2022, she
had been to Teli Galli Latur for meeting accused No.1. She
claims that applicant No.6 ( mother of accused No.1) applicant
No.1 (sister of accused No.1), applicant No.2 (husband of
applicant No.1), applicant No.4 (friend of accused No.1) and
applicant No.3 (cousin of accused No.1) were present there.
She has alleged that applicant No.6 (mother) had hurled
abuses in the name of her caste stating that because of her
caste background, she was not worthy or suitable to marry her
son i.e. accused No.1. The allegations against applicant Nos. 1
to 4 are that they were also present at the spot of the incident
and had hurled similar abuses at respondent No.2. She also
alleges that accused No.1 and his mother (applicant No.6) so
also the present applicant Nos. 1 to 4 had beaten her inflicting
fist blows and kicks. These are the allegations in the First
Information Report lodged by respondent No.2. It will be
pertinent to mention here that the alleged incident had
occurred on 01.07.2022 and First Information Report is lodged
on 12.07.2022. Respondent No.2 has stated that the delay is
due to death threat given to her by the persons named in the
First Information Report.
(5)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
6. The investigating agency has recorded supplementary
statement of Respondent No.2 on 04.08.2022. In this
statement, respondent No.2 has stated that applicant No.4 had
asked her to come to Teli Gali in front of Sattar Tea House in
order to return personal belongings of accused No.1 and
accordingly she had been there at around 6.30 p.m. She
alleges that accused No.1 and applicant Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8
and one Chandpasha @ Babu Inamdar were present at the
spot. In this supplementary statement, she has levelled further
allegations against the applicants. Some of these allegations
which are levelled do not find place in the First Information
Report and some of the allegations are in the nature of further
details or improvisation.
7. The allegations against applicant No.1 are that she had
abused her in the name of her caste and had beaten with her
footwear. The allegations against applicant No.2 are that he
also abused her in the name of her caste and had pulled her
hair. With respect to applicant No.3 she states that he had
insulted her stating that since she belongs to a lower caste, she
can only be a mistress and if she wants to marry, she can
marry him and live with him as a second wife and further that
he held her by her neck and had beaten her with a plastic
chair that was lying at the spot. The allegations against
(6)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
applicant No.4 are that he had held her by her hair and had
also pulled her Burakha and started beating her and further
that while he was beating her, he stated that it was her good
fortune that although she belongs to lower caste he was
touching her.
8. The applicant No.8 appears to be the father of the other
girl with whom accused No.1 had an engagement. The
allegations against him are that while respondent No.2 had
fallen down, he placed his foot on her thighs with a view to
demean and insult her.
9. Advocate Shri. Rohit Patwardhan holding on behalf of
Shri. Satej Jadhav appeared for the applicants and contended
that the First Information Report is lodged with an ill intention
to implicate the family members of accused No.1, since the
relationship between accused No.1 and respondent No.2 did
not materialize by culmination into marriage. He submits that
respondent No.2 was disturbed by the fact that accused No.1
did not marry her despite alleged relationship extending over a
period of two to three years. He states that the allegations
made with respect to Atrocities Act are clearly by way of an
afterthought and should, therefore, be discarded, particularly
having regard to the backdrop in which the First Information
(7)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
Report is lodged. He draws our attention to the contents of the
First Information Report to contend that it is lodged after
period of 12 days from the date of alleged incident and further
that there are glaring inconsistencies in between the contents
of the First Information Report and supplementary statement
recorded on 04.08.2022. According to him, the contents of
the First Information Report would make out offence under the
Atrocities Act against accused No.1 and his mother applicant
No.6 and not against the other accused persons who are
applicants in the present matter. He states that the
supplementary statement dated 04.08.2022 is made after
obtaining legal advise. According to him, overall contents of
the supplementary statement, particularly the statement that
respondent No.2 had not converted to Muslim faith and that
she had agreed to convert once the marriage was solemnized
clearly indicates that the supplementary statement is recorded
pursuant to the legal advise. He also states that the
allegations levelled individually against applicants No. 1 to 4
and 8 in the supplementary statement are pertinently missing
in the First Information Report. He has further submitted that
accused No.1 and respondent No.2 were in live-in-relationship
and that their relationship was akin to that of a husband and
wife and, therefore, when the marriage was not actually
(8)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
solemnized, respondent No.2 has implicated all the family
members of accused No.1. He sums up the submissions
stating that respondent No.2 is trying to take unfair advantage
of belonging to scheduled caste category and that attempt to
falsely implicate the applicants in offence under the Atrocities
Act is apparent on the face of the record. He also submits that
the contents of the First Information report and statements of
all witnesses recorded during the course of the investigation,
so also other material clearly falls short of making out any
offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the
Atrocities Act. As regards IPC sections, he would submit that
the provisions are non cognizable and, therefore, the First
Information Report cannot be registered. He therefore, prays
that the First Information Report and proceeding in Special
Case No. 116 of 2022 be quashed against the applicants.
10. Per contra Shri. A.D. Wange, the learned A.P.P. has
strenuously opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of
the applicants stating that clear and definite allegations
pertaining to Atrocities Act have been levelled in the First
Information Report. He states that the contents of the
supplementary statement are not contrary to what is narrated
in the First Information Report. According to him, the
supplementary statement only provides further details with
(9)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
respect to the allegations made in the First Information Report.
The learned A.P.P. states that the allegations pertaining to ill
intentions on the part of respondent No.2 and/or attempt to
falsely implicate the applicants etc. cannot be the
consideration while entertaining the application for quashing
of the criminal proceedings under Sections 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. He would submit that the contents of the
First Information Report will have to be read and accepted on
their face value for the present proceeding. He therefore, urges
that the application deserves to be rejected.
11. Shri. Harshal Randir, learned Advocate for respondent
No.2 has advanced submissions similar to those advanced by
the learned A.P.P. He submits that abuses were hurled at
respondent No.2 by the applicants who are the family members
and relatives of the principal accused only because she belongs
to scheduled caste and she was also beaten up by the
applicants on that count. He states that the principal accused
has refused to marry the respondent No.2 despite a sustained
relationship for a considerable period of time only because of
her caste and that his family members i.e. the present
applicants have not only supported him in this but have
indulged in the acts of abusing respondent No.2, in the name
of her caste and also have beaten her to ensure that she does
(10)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
not marry with the accused No.1 only because she belongs to
scheduled caste.
12. We have heard the learned Advocates as above and
perused the entire records with their able assistance.
13. At the outset, it may be stated that the principal accused
is not a party to the present proceeding. As regards his mother
i.e. applicant No.6, the application was rejected vide order
dated 12.03.2023.
14. A bare perusal of the First information Report dated
12.07.2022 and supplementary statement recorded on
04.08.2022, would demonstrate that there are no allegations
whatsoever against two applicants viz applicant No.5-Miraj
Khan and applicant No.9-Abdul Hameed Inamdar. In fact their
names have not been mentioned either in the First Information
Report or in the supplementary statement. In the absence of
any allegations against them we deem it appropriate to allow
the present application qua these two applicants.
15. Applicant No.7 Dr. Khayyumkhan Mohammadkhan
Pathan is grand-father of accused No.1. He was admittedly not
present at the spot of the incident. He has neither abused nor
beaten up respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has, however,
(11)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
stated in the First Information Report and supplementary
statement that the other accused persons who were present at
the spot had threatened respondent No.2 in the name of
accused No.7 stating that he was a very influential person and
the other applicants were acting as per his instructions. It is
also alleged that applicant No.1 had stated that applicant No.7
had, in fact, asked them to eliminate respondent No.2 and had
stated that he would manage everything. Except for this, there
is nothing to connect respondent No.7 with the offence. The
alleged statement of co-accused is the only material available
against applicant No.7. The alleged statement of co-accused is
not sufficient enough to sustain prosecution against applicant
No.7. The prosecution is therefore, liable to be quashed
against applicant No.7 as there is no legally admissible
evidence or any material which may take shape of legally
admissible evidence at the trial against him.
16. As regards the case of applicant No.8, he is father of the
girl with whom engagement of accused No.1 was performed.
His name is not mentioned in the First Information Report. His
name appears for the first time in the supplementary
statement dated 04.08.2022. The First Information Report
dated 12.07.2022 pertains to the incident which had allegedly
occurred on 01.07.2022. In the First Information Report,
(12)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
respondent No.2 has stated that accused No.1 Arafat was
present at the spot of the incident along with applicants No. 1
to 4 and 6. The First Information Report, does not indicate
that apart from applicant Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 any other person/s
was/were also present who was/were not known to respondent
No.2 at that time. Perusal of the First Information Report
indicates that only six persons were present. It will be
pertinent to mention that although applicant No.7 was not
present, something has been stated about him in the First
Information Report. However, such statement is not made
with respect to applicant No.8 in the First Information Report.
It is for the first time that a role is ascribed to applicant No.8
in the supplementary statement dated 04.08.2022. The
supplementary statement dated 04.08.2022 is recorded after a
period of over one month from the date of the incident i.e.
01.07.2022. The prosecution has collected CDR’s of all the
accused persons. The CDRs show presence of accused No.1
and applicant Nos. 1 to 4 along with respondent No.2 on
01.07.2022 at a common location. The CDRs do not indicate
presence of applicant No.8.
17. The allegations against applicant No.8 in the
supplementary statement dated 04.08.2022 are required to be
examined in the backdrop of the fact that he is father of the
(13)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
girl who was engaged with accused No.1. The entire cause for
the alleged incident is that the relationship between accused
No.1 and respondent No.2 did not materialize since accused
No.1 was to marry the daughter of applicant No.8. It appears
that it is for this reason that the name of applicant No.1 is
stated in the supplementary statement. The allegations against
applicant No.8 need to be taken with pinch of salt. The
contents of the supplementary statement in the present case
will have to be read in the light of other material on record and
particularly in the First Information Report in which the name
of applicant No.8 is not mentioned and more importantly
presence of any person other than six persons named therein
is also not alleged in the First Information Report.
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently held in the
matter of B. N. John Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another reported in 2024 live law (SC) 4 that crucial facts
of which the informant was fully aware at the time of lodging
First Information Report do not find place in the First
Information Report and are then recorded for the first time in
the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, then a reasonable doubt is created as
regards the veracity of the allegations made in the
supplementary statement.
(14)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
19. It will also be profitable to refer to judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mahmood Ali Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2023)
LiveLaw (SC)613 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing
with a matter pertaining to quashing of criminal proceeding,
has held that when the informant has some vengeance or an
axe to grind against the persons against whom the First
Information Report is lodged, then the contents of the First
Information Report/complaint should be examined along with
all the attending circumstances and material on record.
Overall circumstances of the case must be adverted to. It is
specifically stated that when any person initiates criminal
prosecution on account of personal vengeance or any ulterior
motive, such person would ensure that the First Information
Report/complaint is properly drafted with appropriate
pleadings so as to attempt to make out all the ingredients of
the provisions constituting the offence. In such cases, it is
essential that the Courts dealing with an application under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C examine the matter closely and that
it will not be enough to look at the allegations levelled by the
informant alone. In such cases it is the duty of the Court to
advert to the circumstances leading to initiation of the criminal
proceedings, the Court must read between the lines and the
(15)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
record must be examined with due care and circumspection to
rule out any possibility of victimization of persons arrayed as
accused. This judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
been followed in the matter of Mamidi Anilkumar Reddy Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2024 SCC online
127.
20. We have examined and considered the allegations
against applicant No.8 in the light of aforesaid guidelines of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is clear from the reading of the
First Information Report that according to respondent No.2
only six persons were present when the alleged incident had
occurred. Applicant No.8 is not one of those six persons. The
CDRs collected by the prosecution do not show presence of
applicant No.8 at the spot at the time of the alleged offence.
Applicant No.8 is father of the lady with whom engagement of
applicant No.1 has taken place. All these facts assume even
greater significance since the lodging of the First Information
Report is not immediately after the alleged incident. The First
Information is lodged after a thoughtful consideration after a
period of 12 days. All these facts could have been easily be
recapitulated and stated in the First Information Report. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently in the matter of B. N. John Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (Special leave Petition ( Cri.) No.
(16)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
2184 of 2024 decided on 02.01.2025) held that when vital and crucial
fact which were known to the informant on the date of lodging of the
First Information Report are not mentioned and the same are
subsequently stated in statement recorded under Section 161 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, then inference regarding false implication
of the accused can be drawn against the informant. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court was dealing with a matter of offence under Section
353 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations regarding use of
criminal force or assault to Government servant were missing in the
First Information Report, however, subsequently the same were stated
in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when the fact
regarding alleged use of criminal force or assault was within the
knowledge of the informant and it was not so mentioned in the First
Information Report lodged initially and recorded only in the
subsequent statement, then an adverse inference would be drawn that
the allegation was by way of an afterthought. In this context, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that although the First Information
Report may not be an encyclopedia, it must mention all the relevant
facts indicating a cognizable offence. Explaining the importance of the
First Information Report, it is stated that it is document which triggers
and sets into motion criminal legal process against the accused and it
must disclose the nature of offence alleged to have been committed by
(17)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
the accused. If it does not so indicate the offence committed by an
accused, the First Information Report is liable to be quashed. The
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court fully supports the contentions
of the applicants with respect to the case of applicant No.8, in as much
as although the First Information Report is lodged after a period of 12
days, his presence is not indicated in the First Information Report and
likewise no role is attributed to him in the supplementary statement
recorded after a period of one month. He was sought to be implicated
which appears to be solely on the count that he happens to be father
of the girl with whom engagement of live-in-partner of respondent
No.2 has entered into.
21. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances
emerging from the record, we are of the considered opinion
that criminal prosecution against applicant No.8 also deserves
to be quashed.
22. As regards applicant Nos. 1 to 4, allegations regarding
verbal abuse and beating are levelled against them in the First
Information Report as well as in the supplementary statement.
In the First Information Report, respondent No.2 has stated
that applicant No.6/mother of the principal accused had
abused respondent No.2. The words allegedly uttered by
applicant No.6 have been mentioned in the First Information
(18)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
Report. Respondent No.2 has stated in the First Information
Report that applicant Nos. 1 to 4 had abused her by uttering
similar words. It will be pertinent to mention here that alleged
utterance by applicant Nos. 1 to 4 individually does not find
place in the First Information Report. However, in the
supplementary statement respondent No.2 has quoted the
words allegedly uttered by applicant Nos. 1 to 4, whereas the
statements allegedly made by applicant No.1 and 2 are
restricted to abuses relating to caste, with respect to alleged
statements made by applicant Nos. 3 and 4, apart from the
allegations of the same being casteist, they are alleged to be
tainted with sexual overtones. This allegation of sexist
remarks does not find place in the First Information Report.
There appears to be marked improvement in the allegations
made in the supplementary statement.
23. Prima facie, the presence of accused Nos. 1 to 4 at the
spot of the incident at the alleged time of the offence cannot be
ruled out at this stage in the light of allegations made in the
First Information Report which is supported by their CDRs.
Respondent No.2 has alleged in the First Information Report
itself that applicant Nos. 1 to 4 had also abused her by making
casteist remarks while beating her. Although some
improvements have been made in the statement recorded
(19)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure dated
04.08.2022, we find that the allegation that casteist, abuses
were hurled at respondent No.2 find place in the First
Information Report although, they are lacking in particulars.
The question that falls for consideration is whether these
alleged acts on the part of applicant Nos. 1 to 4 will attract the
rigors of Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act.
Section 3(1)(r) is attracted when a member of scheduled caste
is intentionally insulted or intimidated with an intention to
humiliate him/her in any place within ‘public view’. Likewise
Section 3(1)(s) is attracted when a member of Scheduled Caste
or Scheduled Tribe is abused by the name of caste in any place
within a ‘ public view’. Perusal of the said provisions would
indicate that mere insult or intimidation with a view to
humiliate or hurling abuses in the name of caste will not
constitute an offence under the said provisions. The offence
under the said provisions will be made out only if such act of
insult/ intimidation with a view to humiliate and/ or abuse in
the name of caste is in public view. It will be pertinent to
mention here that the incident need not be in a public place.
It has to be in public view.
24. We have scanned the entire record of the case with the
assistance of learned Advocates with a view to examine as to
(20)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
whether the alleged incident had occurred in a public view. We
may state that respondent No.2 has not mentioned that people
from public at large were present at the spot of the incident
either in her First Information Report or in the supplementary
statement. The final report filed under Sections 173 of the
Cr.P.C. also does not mention that the incident had occurred
in public view. The investigation is complete. The prosecution
has not recorded statement of any third person before whom
the alleged incident had occurred. We are mindful of the fact
that the incident had occurred on 1.07.2022 and First
Information Report was lodged on 12.07.2022 and in such
circumstances it may not be possible for the prosecution to
find any witness in whose presence the alleged incident had
occurred. However, we must reiterate that respondent No.2
has also not alleged that the incident had occurred in the
public view. With this, we may refer to the spot panchnama/
crime details form which forms part of the charge sheet. The
report indicates that the spot of alleged incident is a narrow
lane. The incident might have occurred in a public place,
however, there is no material to indicate that it occurred in
public view. Most importantly, it is not even alleged by
respondent No.2 in the First Information Report or the
supplementary statement or even mentioned by respondent
(21)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
No.1 in the final report that it had occurred in public view.
25. Recently in the case of Prakash Vitthal Bondirwad
and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another
in Criminal Application No. 2672 of 2022 decided on
02.01.2025, this Court, placing reliance upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs.
State of Uttarakan and another [(2020) 10 Supreme Court
Cases 710] has held that in order to constitute offence under
Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act, the alleged
insult, intimidation causing humiliation and/or act of hurling
abuses must be in public view for which presence of some
third person/s is essential at the time of the incident. It is
further held that existence of any independent witness who
has seen the incident is essential to make out the offence
under the said provisions. The First Information Report in
relation to offence under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) came to be
quashed since there was no independent witness, who had
seen the alleged incident. Similar is the situation in the
present case. Here also the charge sheet does not contain the
statement of any third person who has viewed the alleged
incident.
26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of
(22)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
CBI Vs. Tapankumar Singh [(2003) 6 SCC 175) that
although the First Information Report may not be an
encyclopedia of all the facts relating to the offence reported,
but none the less it must contain all the necessary facts which
disclose commission of a cognizable offence which would
provide sufficient information to the police officers to form a
foundation regarding occurrence of a cognizable offence. In
the case at hand, the alleged incident had occurred on
01.07.2022. The First Information Report is lodged after a
period of 12 days on 12.07.2022. Respondent No.2/informant
had sufficient time in between the date of the incident and
lodging of the First Information Report. Yet, in the First
Information Report, nothing is stated about the alleged
incident being witnessed by any third person/s. It is clear
from the First Information Report that according to the
informant/respondent No.2 the incident did not occur in
public view. Respondent No.2/informant has further recorded
her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure on 04.08.2022, even in that supplementary
statement there is no allegation that the incident had
occurred in public view.
27. Having regard to the aforesaid, we are of the view that
offence under Section 3 (1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act is
(23)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
not made out.
28. The other allegation against applicant Nos. 1 to 4 is that
they had caused simple hurt to respondent No.2 by beating her
and likewise there is also allegation of criminal intimidation
under Section 504 and 506 of the IPC. The offences under
Sections 323 and 506 are included in the Schedule referred in
Section 3(2) (va) of the Atrocities Act. Although the offences
under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC are non cognizable
offences, the offences under Sections 323 and 506 IPC when
committed by members not belonging either to Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe against a person belonging to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe becomes a cognizable
offence under Section 3(2)(va). There are clear and consistent
allegations against applicant Nos. 1 to 4 that they had beaten
and caused simple hurt to the respondent No.2 during the
course of the alleged incident on 01.07.2022. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that offence under Sections 3(2)(va)
cannot be quashed against applicant Nos. 1 to 4.
29. One of the issues that falls for consideration is as to
whether criminal prosecution can be quashed only in part i.e.
with respect to provisions which are not attracted and be
maintained with respect to provisions that are attracted. This
(24)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
question is no longer res interga and has been fully answered
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ishwar Pratap
Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2018) 13 SCC 612] that
a criminal prosecution can be quashed in part with respect to
provisions which are not attracted.
30. In view of the aforesaid, we proceed to pass the following
order :-
ORDER
(I) The application is disposed of as withdrawn with respect
to applicant No.6-Shahin Laikhkhan Pathan, as per
order dated 12.04.2023.
(II) The application is allowed with respect to applicant No.
5-Merajkhan Quyyamkhan Pathan, applicant No.7-Dr.
Khayyumkhan Mohammadkhan Pathan, applicant No.8-
Irfan Harun Inamdar (Shaikh) applicant No.9- Abdul
Hamid Allabaksha Inamdar, and and accordingly First
Information Report No. 309 of 2022, registered at Shivaji
Nagar Police Station, District Latur on 12.07.2022 and
Special Case No. 116 of 2022 pending on the file of
learned Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
Latur, are quashed against them.
(25)
901- Cri. Appln. No.4113-2022.odt
(III) As regards applicant No.1-Afshamaskar Laikhkan Pathan
@ Afsha Firdos Ujede. Applicant No.2-Firdos Gulabsab
Ujede, applicant No.3-Samikhan Khayyumkhan Pathan
and applicant No.4-Mukid Abdul Hamid Inamdar, First
Information Report No. 309 of 2022 registered at Shivaji
Nagar Police Station, District Latur on 12.07.2022 and
Special Case No. 116 of 2022 pending on the file of
learned Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at
Latur, are quashed to the extent of offences punishable
under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
and prosecution with respect to other offences is
maintained against them.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI )
JUDGE JUDGE
Y.S. Kulkarni