cri.apln.1630.10 1/7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.1630 of 2010 (Vimal w/o Ashok Bhasme vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Sudhir Malode, Counsel for the Applicant. Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for Non-Applicant Nos.1 to 3. Mr. H.P. Lingayat, Counsel for Non-Applicant No.4. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2011. 2011. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. By the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant is seeking quashment of the First Information Report registered at Police Station Kalamana, Nagpur vide Crime No. 3926/2010 lodged by non- applicant no.4 Akla Ingle. The brief facts giving rise to the present application can be summarized as follows : Non-applicant no.4, who is a teacher in Adarsh Gyan Prakash Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur, was initially appointed as a teacher in Prakash Kanya Vidyalaya and in the year 2005 she was transferred to Prakash Krushi Vidyalaya, Pardi, Nagpur. Sometime in the month of January, 2010, the annual social gathering of the said school was scheduled and the non-applicant no.4/complainant was in-charge of the cultural activities. On cri.apln.1630.10 2/7 07/01/2010, while the students were rehearsing a song viz. “Buddham Sharnam Gacchhami” and non-applicant no.4 was supervising their rehearsal, at that time one Ravi Barokar, a teacher in the said school, came there and picked up the quarrel saying that, ‘who permitted them to play this song’, and then by pulling up the wire, he switched off the Compact Disk player. On 08/01/2010, while non-applicant no.4 was discussing with one Mr. Somkuwar about the earlier day's incident, Ravi Barokar came there and hurled abuses on the caste of non-applicant no. 4. Non-applicant no.4 then made a report to the Headmaster. On 01/10/2010 at about 10:30 a.m., Ravi Barokar and the applicant were talking to each other in the ground of the school under a tamarind tree. While non-applicant no.4 was approaching the washroom, Barokar and the applicant abused non-applicant no.4 on her caste and gave her threats saying that if she lodges report to the police, she and her family members will have to face dire consequences. On receiving the complaint, offences under Sections 3(1)(2) and 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Atrocities Act’ for brevity) were registered against the applicant. Learned Counsel Mr. Sudhir Malode for the applicant submits that the applicant is appointed as a teacher in the year 1980 and since then she is discharging her duties as a teacher in cri.apln.1630.10 3/7 Jagjivanram School till 24/06/1996 and thereafter was transferred to Tarkunde Dharampeth Madhyamik Vidyalaya. She was then again transferred from that school to Prakash Krushi Vidyalaya, Nagpur and from 01/10/2005 till date she is working as a teacher in the said school. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. lodged against the applicant is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The learned Counsel further submits that non-applicant no.4 is in habit of picking up quarrels with other staff members on petty reasons and she also use to give threats to the staff members that she will falsely implicate them under the Atrocities Act. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and other staff members made complaint to the Headmaster about the behaviour of non-applicant no.4. The learned Counsel then submits that considering the situation of the staff room, more particularly the distance between non-applicant no.4 and the applicant, it is not possible for non-applicant no.4 to hear the talk of the applicant. The learned Counsel further submits that non-applicant no.4 use to pick up quarrel with the members of the teaching staff and other staff members on petty issues. He further submits that initially the complaint was registered by one Shri B.K. Marathe, Police Sub-Inspector and though initially the investigation was carried out by Shri Marathe, subsequently the same was handed over to one Mr. Ingle, A.C.P., Lakadganj Zone, cri.apln.1630.10 4/7 Nagpur. A ground was raised to submit that Shri Ingle, who is investigating the offence, is in relation with non-applicant no.4 and as such there will be no impartial investigation. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the application be allowed. Per contra, the application is opposed by Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for non-applicant nos.1 to 3 and Mr. H.P. Lingayat, learned Counsel for non-applicant no.4. The learned Counsel for non-applicant no.4 submits that non-applicant no.4 is working in Prakash Krushi Vidyalaya since 10/10/2008. He further submits that till date the record of non-applicant no.4 is clean and un-blemish, and there is not a single complaint about the teaching of respondent no.4. He further submits that the incident of 07/01/2010, wherein Barokar came in the class room while non-applicant no.4 was supervising the rehearsal of the students asking non-applicant no.4 that who permitted to play the song and this song will not be allowed to play here and then removed the wire of C.D. Player and had thrown the same, was witnessed by other teachers and the incident was reported by non-applicant no.4 to the Headmaster also. The learned Counsel for non-applicant no.4 further submits that non-applicant no.4 had immediately brought this fact to the notice of the Headmaster of the school as well as to the President of the School. The learned Counsel for non- cri.apln.1630.10 5/7 applicant no.4, by inviting my attention to Annexure ‘R-2’ of the reply affidavit, prays for rejection of the application. The learned A.P.P. submits that on receiving the complaint, the police authorities found that the complaint discloses the offence under the Atrocities Act. She further submits that some statement of the witnesses is also recorded. From the statement of witnesses, it is revealed that there were heated exchange of words between non-applicant no.4, Ravi Barokar and the applicant. She further submits that statement of four witnesses is recorded by the investigating agency. The learned A.P.P. further submits that as allegations relate to commit serious offence i.e. offence under the Atrocities Act, and as there is prima facie material against the applicant, the application be rejected. On hearing the learned Counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the documents placed on record, I find that non-applicant no.4/complainant in her report dated 03/10/2010 gave all the details of the events occurred on 07/01/2010, 08/01/2010 and 01/10/2010. The perusal of the complaint further prima facie shows that the applicant has abused non-applicant no.4 on her caste by giving dire consequences and, therefore, the grounds raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant that as non- applicant no.4 is picking up quarrels with other staff members, cri.apln.1630.10 6/7 giving threats to implicate the staff members in the atrocity offences and as such the F.I.R. be quashed and set aside, are unsustainable. It is now the settled position of law that the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are special powers and are to be exercised sparingly and with due care and caution. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the Police Station Officer on receiving the report, ought to have verified the allegations by conducting some enquiry and then only ought to have registered the F.I.R. against the applicant. I am unable to accept the submission of learned Counsel. It is now well settled position of law that the Court while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot assess and weigh the evidence. It is settled position of law that even by bare perusal of the report, if the Court arrives at a conclusion that the allegations are far- fetched or absurd, in that event, this Court can certainly exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the report. In the present case, the perusal of the report lodged by non-applicant no.4 shows that the contents of the report attract the provisions of the Atrocities Act. The perusal of reply filed by the State shows that the investigating agency has recorded statement of some witnesses. The perusal of the reply further shows that the witnesses have cri.apln.1630.10 7/7 heard the abuses given by the applicant to the complainant. In such a situation, in my opinion, this Court cannot exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the F.I.R. Merely because non-applicant no.4 had initially also made some complaints about some of the employees is no ground to exercise the powers of this Court under Section 482 to quash the F.I.R. Considering all these facts, I am of the opinion that the application is devoid of merit and deserves to be rejected. Hence, it is rejected. JUDGE *sdw