bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1590 OF 2001 PETITION NO. 1590 OF 2001 PETITION NO. 1590 OF 2001 Mr.Mahesh alias Raju Shantilal ... Petitioner v/s 1. Mr.G.T.Rane 2. State of Maharashtra ... Respondents Mr.M.S.Mohite for the petitioner. Ms.A.T.Zaveri, A.P.P. for the respondent No.2 State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.V. POTDAR, J. A.V. POTDAR, J. A.V. POTDAR, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. By the present criminal writ petition the petitioner has prayed to quash Special Case No.14 of 2001 pending on the file of the learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocity Act), 1989, at Nasik and to discharge the petitioner and other accused from the said case. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Mohite for the petitioner followed by the argument of learned A.P.P. Ms.Zaveri, appearing for the respondent No.2 State. 3. An offence was registered vide C.R.No.I-60/2000 in 2 Ambad Police Station, Nasik on the complaint of one Jagannath Chandu Pimple, A.P.I. who is under suspension and others for an offence under Section 3(I)(x) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act and under Sections 42, 394, 352 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. According to the petitioner, this case is lodged and registered at the instance of one Jagannath Chandu Pimple, A.P.I. to give counterblast to the case registered against the said complainant at the instance of the petitioner which offence was registered vide C.R.No.I-59/2000 in the same police station i.e. Ambad Police Station, Nasik. 5. During the course of the argument, the learned advocate for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent No.2 State taken me through the entire record and proceedings annexed with the petition. The complaint of Pimple, A.P.I. is at page 14 of the compilation. In un-numbered paragraph 2, which is continued on internal page 2, he has narrated the incident that, in the intervening night between 8.3.2000 and 9.3.2000, the complainant and his friends had gone to take the dinner at Bombay-Agra Road. Around 00.45 hours of 9.3.2000 they proceeded towards the 3 Suresh Petrol Pump in their Maruti Zen Car No.MH-15-AE-3738. In front of the petrol pump they saw the crowd. They stopped the vehicle and alighted from the vehicle. When they reached near the crowd they saw the petitioner and two others and one drunken driver were present at the Suresh Petrol Pump. After they saw the complainant, they pounced on complainant and started beating him. According to the complainant, the gold locket of five tolas with the pendant of Balaji was snatched by the petitioner and they abused in filthy language on his caste. The petitioner and his friends participated in this incident. In the meantime, the police attached to Ambad Police Station came there. The petitioner and his friends informed the police that the complainant has demanded bribe in the sum of Rs.One lac as the complainant suspect that the petitioner and his friends were carrying solvent to mix in petroleum item in the tanker stood at the Suresh Petrol Pump. Hence, there are number of offences registered against the petitioner at various police stations for the petroleum adulteration under the Essential Commodities Act as well as other offences. Thus, the complainant wanted to falsely implicate the petitioner and to give the counterblast to the complaint filed by him. Now they are falsely stating that the bribe is demanded from the complainant Jagannath Chandu Pimple. The event further 4 discloses that from the spot, the petitioner, his friends as well as the complainant and others were picked up and were taken to the police station where counter cases were registered vide C.R. Nos.59 of 2000 and 60 of 2000. 6. During the course of the argument, my attention was drawn towards the statement of Umesh Tukaram Gurav, the eye-witness. On reading his statement it does not whisper at all that the accused person abused the complainant Pimple attributing to the Schedule Caste. Then my attention was drawn towards the statement of others who were carrying their business at the Petrol Pump but these statements are totally silent about the alleged incident as demonstrated by the complainant in his complaint. Then my attention was drawn towards the statement of police constable Mukund Anandrao Patil, Buckle No.1568. This statement is very material to consider the act of the complainant. On internal page No.2 of this statement, this police constable attached to Ambad Police Station has categorically stated that, before entering in Ambad Police Station, A.P.I. Pimple removed the gold chain and mobile from his person and handed it over to his friend Umesh Tukaram Gurav, whose statement is also recorded during the course of the investigation and complaint was lodged at Ambad Police 5 Station of the chain snatching as well as abusing the complainant attributing to his caste. The stand taken by the complainant in his complaint that he came at the spot as he saw the crowd gathered at the petrol pump. By pointing out all the evidence collected by the investigation, it is submitted first that there is no whisper about an abuse by the petitioner and others to the complainant A.P.I. Pimple in filthy language attributing that an offence is committed under the Atrocities Act. By pointing out the statement of police constable Mukund Anandrao Patil, it is alleged that the story of chain snatching during the incident is also a false and concocted story. Then remained the question about the offence under Sections 323 as well as Section 504(2) of the Indian Penal Code. One can understand if the police officer of the rank of A.P.I. can go to the extent to lodge a false complaint against a citizen of chain snatching and under the Atrocities Act, then his statement alleging offence at the hands of the petitioner about the abuse and other things cannot be accepted. 7. During the course of arguments, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the ruling reported in 2006(1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 778, between 2006(1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 778, between 2006(1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 778, between Manohar Manohar Manohar Martandrao Kulkarni & anr. v/s State of Martandrao Kulkarni & anr. v/s State of Martandrao Kulkarni & anr. v/s State of 6 Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra & ors., & ors., & ors., on the observations in paragraphs 8 and 13, a judgment delivered by His Lordship Shri Justice R.S.Mohite about the registration of crime under the Atrocities Act and the requirement of the consideration of the F.I.R. The gist of the ratio is that the complaint/F.I.R. must disclose the caste of the complainant as well as the caste of the accused and the knowledge of which to both of them. If either is absent, then though the F.I.R. is registered under the Atrocities Act, the ratio laid down in the judgment cited is not under dispute for both sides but the fact remains that in the F.I.R. the caste of the complainant as well as the accused is not mentioned at all. This Court is not concerned with it as the statement of the person accompanying the complainant never supported the fact mentioned in the complaint by A.P.I. Pimple. 8. During the course of the argument, the learned A.P.P. made a statement across the bar that the chargesheet is already filed in this case. Let the petitioner be applied for discharge before the Special Judge which will be a proper remedy for him. I am making it clear that, while framing the charge there must be a prima facie evidence atleast to frame the charge. But that stage will come after the contents of the complaint are honest. Here, it is demonstrated 7 before me that the contents of the complaint are not only false but they are concocted. In the premises, the submissions of the learned A.P.P. cannot be accepted. 9. In the result, the petition succeeds with the following order:- O R D E R R D E R R D E R (1) Writ petition allowed in terms of prayer clause 6(A) of the petition and stands disposed of. (2) Parties to bear their own costs.